Saraswati Devi v. Harvinder Singh Sodhi
!
"## $
%#" &"# '&
#$ !
"
(#$ # )* %#
+
, - -# #
' .
#/$ "
0&1 2$ )+ #* 3 * "
* '
* # ' #)+' #$
#) *) # / * -# / * /$* , ,&(
4 * 5
6 . #," )*7 / & 8 *$
/
#
$ )+ # *)
" *#$ / +$" $# */
-
$ $ 9 * # $
$ " # #
+ *
# /
*"# $ # & * #
7 *
/$"1 ) * " +"# * $ **) + $ )+& * #
7 (#:
)*+#"# *+
##
#"# #$ -) *! #* $ #; "/
# !6)* $/ $ $ * 9
&$$ * 0*2 ,..< * 5
)/
# # #$ (# /$ ") #!6)* $/
## :
+ * -#
' <
*" # #$ *) # / !
" # # * * # $ $ " # ## )*
' $ )"
# " #$
* "
#$ ; / # Personal liberty holds a pre-eminent position in our Constitutional framework, embodying the essence of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The imposition of an onerous condition such as a surety bond of ₹50 lakhs as a prerequisite for granting bail is antithetical to the principles of justice and fairness. Unless there exists a clear, compelling necessity for the deprivation of liberty, an individual should not be remanded to judicial custody. Judicial custody, it must be underscored, is preventive in nature and not punitive. The primary objective of bail is to ensure the appearance of the accused at trial, and this objective can be achieved by imposing reasonable conditions.
A surety bond of such exorbitant value cannot be deemed reasonable in good conscience, as it effectively places a monetary price on liberty, which is inherently invaluable. Deprivation of liberty must not be used as a form of punishment but rather as a measure of last resort to secure the ends of justice.
#(# of our Constitution, and no individual should be priced out of their liberty in the pursuit of justice.
The imposition of such an egregious condition would, in almost all cases, result in the accused being unable to furnish the required surety, thereby depriving them of their liberty and subjecting them to the harsh realities of jail life. The psychological and physical toll of incarceration during this phase can be devastating. The adverse impact extends beyond the individual to their innocent family members, who bear the burden of financial distress and emotional anguish. Such collateral damage undermines the principle of presumption of innocence and the larger goal of ensuring a fair and equitable justice system.
At this juncture, it would be apposite to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Moti Ram vs. State of M.P.' (1978) 4 SCC 47, wherein Justice Krishna Iyer observed as follows: = 7
&/ /*" #-" ## *"*
$ #% */& '
>44 / )"(# # '9+%3# /
)
#""/+ =( +' ; "? / ; *$/ + // *; #/ #) *+ / (# + / # # ' ;
**+ 1 / #3 +& > (#$$ *$ $) *
$ ** *#* !
$ $/ + /@(# #/ $ +) *! ) +#/% #$ $ $!* " #;
-'/ # $# $ + ) *
#$# !
+;
*) #" * + !
+;
*) + # ) $ !
+;
*) # +/*-*+
*) * !
+;
* *+A) # $BC0/$# 2 111111111111 (#8+*$ %
)" # /$ / * =D# * ""
# "
/ *
+) /
/
+) * +*/ / * $ - /
+ *
*" / ; ' # *+ # # ## *"# (# "
/ )
:
$ ##$ ** *) *+ /
+% *(#
$
1$# #
# /# /
"C E #' #!6)*&$1 5
6' )*& !"
)* #"#*"# #
$ $ # =7 #"# /
* / *
- /
+* #*+ *"/ ; ') # * # ## :
* *"F * $ )* *; #"
* / * ** # * )/ # # #
- **' #*
# /*+ ' #// +';) +'
//)#$
)* "
' # * ) /
" ) # * $$$
)* #$ *) # /
+)*"
F / +) + #
#'# $ )+ // #$ **
* **+ * $$ /$* # $/
#$ *)'## **)* )* $ % #*
/ ) :
$ ## $ ** *+ ) # BC 7 # ) ' $ **
#
0&1 2/ #1
:
### )1)+ * * -## **
' < ! *&&'
D# #$ -"< G<, D# #$
)* G<,