In a significant ruling on bail conditions under the BNSS, 2023, the Gauhati High Court reduced the bail bond amount from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 50,000/-, dispensed with the local surety requirement, and issued a clarificatory direction that mere mention of an amount in a bail bond does not require cash deposit before police or court. The Court held that the power under Section 483(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 to set aside or modify bail conditions can be exercised where the condition imposed is excessive, unduly onerous, or has the effect of rendering the order granting bail practically incapable of compliance.
Referring to Sections 485 and 490 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 441 and 445 of the CrPC, 1973), the Court held that a bail bond is merely an undertaking by the accused and a surety bond is an undertaking by the surety, and neither requires cash deposit merely by reason of the amount being specified therein. The Court further held that the mere fact that the accused is a resident of another State cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient ground for insisting upon a local surety, particularly when such a condition frustrates the very order granting bail.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Budi Habung observed that the accused had been languishing in custody for more than three months despite having been granted the concession of bail, which itself indicated that the conditions relating to the bail bond and local surety were excessive and onerous, particularly when the accused had been unable to make arrangements for the same.
The Court further noted that the requirement of a local surety, in the facts and circumstances of the case, also appeared to be excessive and unduly onerous, as the mere fact that the accused was a resident of another State could not, by itself, constitute sufficient ground for insisting upon a local surety, particularly when such a condition had the effect of frustrating the very order granting bail.
The Court emphasised that the purpose of requiring a bond or surety is to secure compliance with the conditions of bail and to ensure the presence of the accused during the investigation and trial, and such a requirement is not intended to impose a condition which is incapable of being complied with.
Briefly, the petitioner, Kamin Taloh, filed an application under Section 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking modification of bail conditions imposed upon the accused, Anar Ali, vide order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo. The accused was arrested on April 22, 2026 in connection with a police case, registered under Sections 318(2) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the charge-sheet was filed.
The CJM, Daporijo, granted bail to the accused upon his executing a bail bond of Rs. 2 lakhs with one local surety for the like amount. The accused, being a simple mason and daily-wage earner, was unable to furnish the bail bond or arrange for a local surety, as he is a resident of the State of Assam and not of Arunachal Pradesh. It was further submitted that the police authorities were insisting upon the accused to deposit the bail-bond amount in cash as a condition for his release, and consequently, despite being granted bail, the accused continued to remain in custody.
