Persistent Defiance Of Bail Surety Guidance: Allahabad High Court Warns Contempt Action Against Judicial Officers For Imposing Excessive Bail Sureties
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar modified the bail conditions imposed on a petitioner-accused, reducing the requirement of a ₹1,00,000 personal bond with two sureties to a ₹5,000 bond with one surety, and permitted reliance on Supreme Court bail-policy directions where appropriate. In doing so, the Court recorded that subordinate courts have shown “persistent and repeated defiance” of binding guidance on bail sureties and cautioned that continued mechanical insistence on high surety amounts, without regard to an accused person’s financial capacity, may lead to contempt action against the concerned judicial officers. The Court referred to repeated directions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, including those circulated after Bachchi Devi, and called for an explanation and compliance report from the district judiciary.
An FIR was lodged in 2024 under Sections 331(4), 317(5), and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging theft of two buffaloes and one baby buffalo belonging to the informant. During investigation, the livestock was recovered from the possession of co-accused individuals. The petitioner’s name surfaced during investigation, leading to his arrest and inclusion in the charge-sheet.
The petitioner applied for bail and was granted release by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount. The petitioner challenged this condition, contending financial incapacity to arrange such sureties. He argued that co-accused, from whose possession the livestock was recovered, were granted bail on furnishing bonds of ₹25,000 with two sureties each.
The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court order reducing heavy surety amounts and a High Court judgment in Smt. Bachchi Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr., which directed district courts to adhere to uniform bail practices. He submitted that the trial court’s order disregarded these directions. The matter was placed before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking modification of bail conditions.
The Court recorded: “On perusal of the impugned order and the order dated 10.9.2024, referred herein above, it is prima facie observed that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has either not comprehended the directions properly, or has misunderstood the same, or is otherwise not willing to adhere to the directions, for reasons best known to them.”
It further stated: “This is not a stand-alone case; this Court regularly receives applications seeking modification of bail orders passed by the district courts in clear defiance of Bachchi Devi (supra), and even prior to Bachchi Devi (supra), in disregard of the several orders/judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon therein.”
The Court observed: “An explanation is sought from the learned Judges, through the District Judge, Bareilly, who have passed the impugned order and the order dated 10.9.2024 referred to hereinabove, as to why the guidelines have not been followed by them, and if they have been followed, the same may be duly explained.”
It recorded: “Assistance of the High Court, through the Registrar General, is also required to ascertain whether the learned Judges have committed ‘contempt of this Court’ or ‘of its own court’ by not following the directions in Bachchi Devi (supra), or whether it falls within their discretion to interpret the judgments of the Constitutional Courts according to their personal understanding of law based on old, redundant practices having no legal sanction.”
The Court stated: “This Court is conscious that it is indeed distressing—even inconsistent with dignity—for this Court to so much as whisper about initiating contempt proceedings against its own judicial officers, who enjoy a distinct and elevated status in society and are entrusted with the solemn jurisdiction to pronounce even capital punishment, where the law so requires and the accused is found guilty.”
It further observed: “Judicial discipline is not a matter of choice; it is a constitutional imperative that sustains the hierarchy of courts and ensures coherence and certainty in the administration of justice.” The Court recorded: “Judicial morality demands that every Judge, irrespective of rank, faithfully follows the law declared by the Constitutional Courts. The conduct of Judges does not remain confined to the four walls of the courtroom; it shapes public perception of the justice-delivery system and, in turn, moulds the moral fabric of society.”
The Court directed: “So far as the prayer made in present petition is concerned, the impugned order dated 8.11.2025 is modified to the extent that the petitioner be released on his executing personal bond of Rs.5000/- and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, or alternatively in view of guidelines issued by Supreme Court In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 483].”
The Court further ordered: “Put up on 18.12.2025 as fresh at 12:30 pm., along with the compliance report to be submitted by the learned District Judge Bareilly. The compliance be made in letter and spirit, effectively. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed forthwith to transmit a certified copy of this order to the learned District Judge, Bareilly for immediate compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Arun Pratap Singh, Kamaluddin
Case Title: Pappu Met @ Pappu v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 15205 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
