Whether court should grant bail to a foreign national, who is unable to furnish local surety?

 In LachhmanDass v. Resham Chand Kaler, (2018) 3 SCC 187, (Para 10), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the law under section 439CrPC is very clear and in the eye of the law every accused is the same irrespective of their nationality.{Para 11}

15. In Shokhista v. State, 2005 LawSuit (Del) 1316, Delhi High Court observed,

5. …The accused is a foreign national and is not able to furnish a local surety. The same does not debar her from being admitted to bail. The provision of local surety is nowhere mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure and surety can be from any part of the country or without. In the present case, since the accused is a foreign national and is facing investigation under Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the I.T.P. Act and in view of the fact that the Petitioner is ready and willing to make a deposit in cash in lieu of the surety in addition to a personal bond, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in permitting her to do so. Consequently, I admit the Petitioner to bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a cash deposit of the like amount in lieu of the surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial court and shall deposit her pass-port with the trial court.

16. Given the above reasoning, coupled with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to strict terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

 In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla

(Before Anoop Chitkara, J.)

Collins Vs  State of H.P.

Cr.M.P. (M) No. 254 of 2021

Decided on April 27, 2021,

Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine HP 787

Print Page

Whether imposing high cash security as bail condition virtually amounts to denial of bail itself?

The condition imposed by the High Court for enlarging Keshab Narayan Banerjee, appellant No. 1 on bail, namely, that he should furnish security for rupees one lakh in cash or in fixed deposit of any nationalised bank in Bihar with two sureties residing in the State of Bihar each for a like amount appears to be excessively onerous. In the circumstances of this case, it virtually amounts to denial of bail itself. It is, therefore, ordered that appellant No. 1 shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.

Supreme Court of India

Keshab Narayan Banerjee And Anr. vs The State Of Bihar on 11 July, 1984

Equivalent citations: AIR 1985 SC 1666, 1985 CriLJ 1857

Author: E Venkataramiah J

Print Page