Accepting Bail Bonds: Delhi HC Registers Suo Motu Case on Delay by Jail Authorities

The Delhi High Court (HC), on February 19, took suo moto cognisance of the inordinate delay by jail superintendents in accepting bail bonds and releasing prisoners who have been granted bail by courts [Court on its own motion v Director General of Prisons, Govt of NCT of Delhi].

In its order passed on February 19, Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the object of granting bail and suspending sentence is to release the accused/convict from imprisonment and it was beyond the Court’s understanding as to why jail superintendents were taking one to two weeks for accepting the bail bonds.

The court therefore sought an immediate response from the Director General of Prisons and Standing Counsel (Criminal) of Delhi government on the issue and has posted the matter for March 7. Justice Mahajan took cognisance of the issue while dealing with a modification application filed by a convict whose sentence was suspended on February 8. Despite this the prisoner has not been released!

 “In certain cases, interim bails are granted on medical grounds or some other exigencies, as expressed by the applicant. In such a scenario this Court fails to understand why the period of one to two weeks be taken by the Jail Superintendent for accepting the bail bonds,” the Court said.

 “The Court while passing bail order at times directs that the Bails bond be directly furnished to the Jail Superintendent. The prisoner is not remitted to the Trial Court in order to facilitate the immediate release. The delay at the instance of the Jail Superintendent in accepting Bail Bonds is not acceptable to the conscience of this Court. Let the matter be registered as sou moto petition and numbered,” the Court ordered.

The Court noted any order passed by the Court directing release of prisoner from jail is sent directory to the jail authorities through Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records (FASTER) cell and yet delays were happening.

Facts of the case:

“By order dated 08.02.2024 in CRL.REV.P. 1362/2023, the sentence awarded to the petitioner therein was suspended and he was directed to be released on bail on certain conditions and on furnishing a bail bond to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. (Para 1)

“An application was filed pointing out that the bail bond which was directed to be furnished to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, has not been processed. The grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, despite the sentence being suspended by this Court by the order dated 08.02.2024, the petitioner has not yet been released.” (Para 2)

“The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court seeking modification in the order dated 08.02.2024 to the extent that the petitioner be directed to furnish the bail bond to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court instead of the concerned Jail Superintendent.” (Para 3)

“It was alleged that the formalities in relation to the acceptance of bail bond by the Jail Superintendent takes this is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2024 at 18:04:38 approximately one to two weeks.” (Para 4)

“The object of granting bails and suspending sentences is to release the accused/convict from imprisonment. In certain cases, interim bails are granted on medical grounds or some other exigencies, as expressed by the applicant. In such a scenario this Court fails to understand why the period of one to two weeks be taken by the Jail Superintendent for accepting the bail bonds.” (Para 5)

Quoting from repeated pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the principle that  “Deprivation of Liberty for a single day is a day too many..”, the Delhi High Court also referred to the Guidelines for Compliance of Bail Orders by the apex court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.4/2021.

These are:

1) The Court which grants bail to an undertrial prisoner/convict would be required to send a soft copy of the bail order by e-mail to the prisoner through the Jail Superintendent on the same day or the next day. The Jail Superintendent would be required to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prisons software [or any other software which is being used by the Prison Department].

2) If the accused is not released within a period of 7 days from the date of grant of bail, it would be the duty of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the Secretary, DLSA who may depute para legal volunteer or jail visiting advocate to interact with the prisoner and assist the prisoner in all ways possible for his release.

3) NIC would make attempts to create necessary fields in the e-prison software so that the date of grant of bail and date of release are entered by the Prison Department and in case the prisoner is not released within 7 days, then an automatic email can be sent to the Secretary, DLSA.

4) The Secretary, DLSA with a view to find out the economic condition of the accused, may take help of the Probation Officers or the Para Legal Volunteers to prepare a report on the socio-economic conditions of the inmate which may be placed before the concerned Court with a request to relax the condition (s) of bail/surety.

5) In cases where the undertrial or convict requests that he can furnish bail bond or sureties once released, then in this is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2024 at 18:04:38 an appropriate case, the Court may consider granting temporary bail for a specified period to the accused so that he can furnish bail bond or sureties.

6) If the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the date of grant bail, the concerned Court may suo moto take up the case and consider whether the conditions of bail require modification/ relaxation.

7) One of the reasons which delays the release of the accused/ convict is the insistence upon local surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose the condition of local surety.” We order that the aforesaid directions shall be complied with” (emphasis supplied)

Further, the Delhi High Court also referred to the Supreme Court order in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.4/2021 in which the apex court had also passed directions to adopt the procedure termed as ‘FASTER’ for Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records, in order to reduce the delay caused in forwarding the orders granting bail to the Jail Authorities.

In the February 19 order, the Delhi HC pointed out that the Rule 7 (mentioned above) is also incorporated in part E of the Chapter 14 of the Delhi High Rules & Orders, the same reads as under: I. The following Rule shall be introduced as Rule 7 after the existing Rule 6 of Part E of Chapter 14 of Delhi High Court Rules & Orders, Volume I: – “7. Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records (FASTER): The e-authenticated copies of the interim orders, stay orders and record of proceedings of the courts transmitted through Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records (FASTER) System shall be valid for compliance of the direction contained therein.”

Therefore, the Court held that “any order passed by this Court thereby directing the release of the prisoner from jail is sent directly to the concerned jail authorities through FASTER cell,” and the “Court while passing bail order at times directs that the Bails bond be directly furnished to the Jail Superintendent. The prisoner is not remitted to the Trial Court in order to facilitate the immediate release.” (Para 10)

Hence, the court stated that, “the delay at the instance of the Jail Superintendent in accepting Bail Bonds is not acceptable to the conscience of this Court. Let the matter be registered as Sou Moto petition and numbered.”

Notice was thereafter issued to the Director General of Prisons and Standing Counsel (Criminal), Government of NCT of Delhi.

Ms. Nandita Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel, who was present in Court, submitted that the petitioner’s case is possibly an aberration and delay normally does not occur on the part of the Jail Superintendent.

The Order of the Delhi HC may be read here