The Delhi High Court has recently initiated a suo motu petition pertaining to the delay in acceptance of bail bonds by jail superintendents, and issued a notice to the Director General of Prisons and Standing Counsel (Criminal), Delhi government. A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Mahajan, in its February 19 order, observed: "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 is taken by the Jail Superintendent for accepting the bail bonds." The High Court, thereafter, observed that at times, while passing bail orders, courts direct that the bail bonds be directly furnished to the jail superintendent. It said 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," Justice Mahajan further said. The court took suo motu cognisance while hearing a modification application moved by a convict whose sentence was suspended by the High Court on February 8. The man had moved the High Court against an October 2023 decision of the Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge), which had upheld his conviction by the trial court for committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The man was sentenced to one year of imprisonment. The High Court on February 8, while suspending the sentence, had directed that he be released on bail on certain conditions and on furnishing a bail bond to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. The man, thereafter, moved the High Court seeking that he be directed to furnish the bail bond to the trial court, instead of the concerned Jail Superintendent. It was alleged that the formalities in relation to the acceptance of bail bond by the Jail Superintendent takes approximately one to two weeks. The counsel appearing for the State of Delhi submitted that petitioner's case is "possibly an aberration and delay, normally, does not occur on the part of the Jail Superintendent". Justice Mahajan further noted that the Supreme Court, in 'Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.4/2021', had also passed directions to adopt the procedure, termed as Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records or 'FASTER', in order to reduce the delay caused in forwarding the orders granting bail to the jail authorities. The court also referred to the Delhi High Court Rules with respect to the 'FASTER' procedure, and said that any order passed by the High Court, directing release of the prisoner from jail, is sent directly to the concerned jail authorities through FASTER cell. The High Court, in its order, also referred to the Supreme Court's reteriation of the principle "Deprivation of Liberty for a single day is a day too many."
