The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that bail, once granted, cannot be rendered illusory by rigid enforcement of surety conditions that an accused cannot fulfill due to genuine hardship. This judgment clarifies that detention post-bail order, solely for non-compliance with surety requirements, violates the very essence of personal liberty under Article 21.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sachin Dnyaneshwar Dahake, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 482/2022 registered at Beltarodi Police Station, Nagpur, for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, 1999. The case involves allegations of financial fraud and misappropriation of depositor funds.
Key Facts
- The applicant was arrested in 2022 following a complaint by depositors
- He applied for regular bail before the Bombay High Court
- On 12.01.2026, the Court granted bail subject to two conditions: (i) execution of a P.R. bond of Rs. 1,00,000, and (ii) furnishing two solvent sureties each in the same amount
- Despite repeated efforts, the applicant was unable to arrange for two solvent sureties due to financial constraints and lack of willing guarantors
- As of 07.05.2026, the applicant remained in judicial custody despite the bail order being in force for over four months
- The applicant offered to furnish one solvent surety of Rs. 2,00,000 as an alternative
Procedural History
- 2022: Crime No. 482/2022 registered at Beltarodi Police Station
- 2025: Application for regular bail filed before the Bombay High Court
- 12.01.2026: High Court granted bail subject to conditions including two solvent sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each
- 07.05.2026: Criminal Application No. 1591/2026 filed seeking modification of bail conditions due to non-compliance
- 07.05.2026: Hearing conducted and order passed on the same day
Relief Sought
The applicant sought modification of the bail condition to permit release on a P.R. bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one solvent surety of Rs. 2,00,000, arguing that continued detention despite the grant of bail amounted to a denial of liberty.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused who has been granted bail but is unable to comply with the condition of furnishing two solvent sureties be lawfully detained in custody, and does such detention violate the principle of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The learned counsel submitted that the applicant had made sincere efforts to arrange for two solvent sureties but was unable to do so due to genuine financial hardship. He emphasized that the applicant was ready to offer a single surety of Rs. 2,00,000, which exceeds the total security required under the original order. He relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Customs v. Faridah Nakanwagi to argue that surety cannot act as a barrier to release when the accused has otherwise established a prima facie case for bail. He contended that continued detention in such circumstances is arbitrary and violates the spirit of bail jurisprudence.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, asserting that offences under the MPID Act are serious and involve large-scale financial fraud affecting public depositors. She argued that the condition of two solvent sureties was imposed to ensure the accused’s appearance and to deter flight risk. She contended that relaxing the condition would undermine the Court’s authority and set a precedent that could be misused in similar cases.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences under the MPID Act but emphasized that the grant of bail itself signifies that the accused has met the threshold for release. The Court observed that the purpose of surety is to ensure appearance and not to impose an insurmountable financial burden.
"The Supreme Court has time and again considered this issue and held that inspite of the fact that the accused is released on bail, however, for want of compliance of the condition due to poverty or any other reason, if he is not released from jail then it would amount to denial of bail."
The Court cited Customs v. Faridah Nakanwagi to reinforce that the inability to furnish surety, particularly when attributable to poverty or lack of social support, cannot be permitted to frustrate a judicial order granting bail. The Court noted that the applicant’s offer of a single surety of Rs. 2,00,000 not only meets but exceeds the aggregate security value originally required. The Court held that the original condition was procedural, not substantive, and could be modified without compromising the interests of justice.
The Court further observed that detention beyond the grant of bail, solely due to non-compliance with a condition that the accused cannot fulfill, amounts to a de facto denial of bail and violates the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court modified the bail condition and ordered the release of Sachin Dnyaneshwar Dahake on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 482/2022, subject to furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one solvent surety in the same amount. The applicant was directed to be released within 24 hours of compliance. The Court explicitly held that the original condition of two sureties was set aside and replaced with the modified condition.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Surety Cannot Be a Barrier to Liberty
- Practitioners must now argue that any bail condition requiring multiple sureties must be proportionate and not practically unattainable
- Courts must assess the accused’s financial capacity before imposing surety conditions
- A single surety of equivalent or higher value may be accepted if the accused demonstrates genuine inability to arrange multiple sureties
Modification of Bail Conditions Is Permissible
- Applications seeking modification of bail conditions due to changed circumstances are maintainable
- Courts have inherent power to modify conditions to prevent abuse of process or denial of liberty
- Offers of enhanced security (e.g., higher single surety) should be viewed favorably as a substitute for multiple sureties
MPID Act Cases Are Not Exempt from Bail Principles
- Serious economic offences under the MPID Act do not justify automatic denial of bail or rigid enforcement of unattainable conditions
- The gravity of the offence is relevant to grant of bail, but not to the enforceability of its conditions
- Detention post-bail order, even in financial fraud cases, constitutes a violation of Article 21 if due to non-compliance with impossible conditions
