Surety conditions in bail: cash substitution is exceptional, with stricter scrutiny for foreign nationals and flight risk.

Surety is the normal bail requirement because it helps secure the accused's appearance, but a court may relax it where genuine inability to furnish surety is shown and the condition would become unfair or impossible to meet. Cash deposit in place of surety is legally permissible, yet only as an exceptional measure and not as a routine substitute. The court noted that this scrutiny is stricter for foreign nationals because of the higher risk of absconding. On the facts discussed, the applicants did not establish sufficient grounds for complete waiver or cash substitution, so those requests were refused, although the bail conditions were modified to a limited extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a court may dispense with the requirement that an undertrial or convict furnish a surety bond executed by a third person, or substitute the surety requirement with a cash deposit. (ii) Whether such waiver or substitution should be granted as a matter of course, including in the case of a foreign national, and how it applies on the facts of the present applications.

Issue (i): Whether a court may dispense with the requirement that an undertrial or convict furnish a surety bond executed by a third person, or substitute the surety requirement with a cash deposit.

Analysis: The governing principle is that bail conditions must secure the accused's availability for trial or for undergoing sentence, while remaining fair and not impossible to comply with. The requirement of surety is not an empty formality; it reflects the basic concept that the accused is released into the custody of the surety, who assures appearance before the court. At the same time, where a prisoner is genuinely unable to furnish surety because of poverty or lack of local support, the court may, in an appropriate case, relax that requirement. Deposit of money in lieu of bond is legally permissible, but it remains an exceptional measure and cannot be treated as the ordinary substitute for surety.

Conclusion: The court may dispense with surety in a proper case, but cash substitution is only an exception and not a matter of right.

Issue (ii): Whether such waiver or substitution should be granted as a matter of course, including in the case of a foreign national, and how it applies on the facts of the present applications.

Analysis: Waiver of surety or substitution by cash must be tested on whether the accused has a genuine inability to furnish surety and whether the judicial process remains protected. The position is even more guarded where the accused is a foreign national, because the flight risk is higher. On the facts, both applicants had overstayed their visas for long periods, faced serious criminal prosecution, and failed to show genuine financial inability or any adequate basis to justify dispensing with surety altogether. The court therefore found no justification to replace surety with cash, but granted limited relaxation by reducing the amount of surety required.

Conclusion: The prayers for complete waiver of surety and for cash in lieu of surety were rejected, but the bail conditions were modified to a limited extent in favour of the applicants.

Final Conclusion: The applications were disposed of by refusing the principal request for waiver or cash substitution while granting a narrower relaxation of the bail conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Surety is the norm in bail administration, cash in lieu of surety is an exceptional relaxation, and any waiver or substitution must be justified by genuine inability and by the need to preserve the accused's availability for trial, with heightened caution in the case of foreign nationals.

---