VENUGOPAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principle that conditions imposed while granting bail cannot be too onerous or incapable of performance rendering the bail granted illusory and even redundant, is elementary and needs no restatement. However, instances are numerous where the trial courts impose conditions that make the liberty ordered chimerical. This case indicates the hardships of an accused involved in numerous cases.

(2.) Petitioner is an accused before different police stations in different districts in Kerala, alleging offences punishable under Sec. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from offences under Sec. 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Act, 2019. As many as 1726 crimes have already been registered against him in different districts. Petitioner was taken into custody on 10/10/2022. Though petitioner is eligible to be released on bail, either by directions of the court or by statutory bail, he has not been able to enjoy his liberty due to his inability to produce sureties to the satisfaction of the different courts.

(3.) Sri.C.S.Manu, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the courts are insisting on different sureties to be furnished for each case and considering the large number of cases registered against the petitioner, it is impossible for him to obtain or produce different sureties. It was submitted that some of the Courts insists on separate sureties to be provided for more than a particular number of cases. Specific reference is made to the view expressed by a Court at Kollam, which had refused to accept the same sureties for more than 20 cases. Learned Counsel also submitted that some courts are even insisting on court fee to be paid for all applications filed by the petitioner.