The Gauhati High Court has clarified that the amount mentioned in a bail or surety bond cannot be treated as an amount required to be deposited in cash for securing release on bail.

Justice Budi Habung observed, “it is hereby clarified that the amount specified in a personal/bail bond or surety bond does not mean that a cash deposit is required to be made before the police or the Court merely for securing release on bail. The accused and the surety shall, however, be required to execute the requisite bonds in accordance with law. No authority shall insist upon the deposit of the bail-bond amount in cash merely because such amount is mentioned in the bail order.”

The observation came in an application under Section 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking modification of the bail conditions imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, in a Bail Application. The accused, Anar Ali, had been arrested in a case under Sections 318(2) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. After filing of the charge-sheet, the Magistrate granted him bail on execution of a bail bond of ₹2 lakh with one local surety for the like amount.

The petitioner submitted that the accused was a mason and daily-wage earner and was unable to furnish the bail bond of ₹2 lakh or arrange a local surety. It was also submitted that since he was a resident of Assam, he could not arrange a local surety in Arunachal Pradesh and that the police authorities were insisting upon deposit of the bail-bond amount in cash. Consequently, despite the order granting bail, he continued to remain in custody.

The Additional Public Prosecutor did not oppose modification of the bail conditions and submitted that similar situations arose in different parts of Arunachal Pradesh. He sought a clarification that the amount mentioned in a bail bond or surety bond should not be treated as an amount required to be deposited in cash before the police or the Court.

The High Court noted that although the accused had been found entitled to bail, he had been unable to avail himself of the benefit of the order because of his inability to furnish the stipulated bail bond and local surety.

The Court said, “Thus, despite having been granted the concession of bail, the accused continues to languish in custody for more than three months. This fact, in itself, indicates that the conditions relating to the bail bond and local surety are excessive and onerous, particularly when the accused has been unable to make arrangements for the same.”

The Court also found the requirement of a local surety to be “excessive and unduly onerous” in the facts and circumstances of the case.

“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 has the effect of frustrating the very order granting bail. 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. Such a requirement is not intended to impose a condition which is incapable of being complied with,” the Court added.

Accordingly, the Court modified the condition and directed that the accused be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount. It further directed that the surety would not be required to be a local resident, subject to verification of identity and solvency in accordance with law.

On the alleged insistence upon deposit of the bail-bond amount in cash, the High Court noted that the Magistrate's order had not specifically directed the accused to deposit the bail amount in cash and only required execution of a bail bond with one local surety.

The Court stated, “It is necessary to clarify that a bail bond constitutes an undertaking or obligation undertaken by the accused in the amount specified in the bond, subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Mere specification of an amount in a bail bond does not, by itself, require the accused to deposit such amount in cash. Similarly, a surety bond constitutes an undertaking by the surety in respect of the amount specified therein and does not, merely by reason of such specification, require the surety to deposit the said amount in cash.”

The Court directed that upon execution and acceptance of the requisite personal bond and surety bond, the accused be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with any other case or proceeding. The remaining conditions imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate were left unaltered.

The order was also directed to be furnished to the concerned Superintendent of Police for information and necessary circulation among the police officers under his command for compliance.

Case Name: Shri Kamin Taloh & Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 126

Click here to read the judgment

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a litigant should not suffer due to the negligence of his counsel, while restoring an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and condoning a delay of 123 days in seeking its restoration.

Justice Pranjal Das observed, “The decision in Solim Manyu Vs. Benglum Manyu, CRP/21(AP)/2025 and N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurty reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, would not come in the way of this revisional court approaching the matter in a justice-oriented manner, keeping in mind the contentions of the petitioner and the principles laid down in the above discussed judgments.”

The observation came in a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the judgment passed by the District Judge, Yupia in a Civil (Misc.) Appeal which arose from the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia dismissing the petitioner's application seeking condonation of 123 days' delay and restoration of his first appeal.

The petitioner and the respondent, were husband and wife and had acquired two plots of land at Hollongi under Balijan Circle. They separated in 2010. According to the petitioner, he continued in peaceful possession of the land and obtained Land Possession Certificates in 2018. The respondent later complained before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Balijan that the certificates had been fraudulently and dishonestly obtained, following which they were recalled and cancelled. The petitioner challenged the cancellation before the High Court.

Meanwhile, on a complaint by the respondent, the Gaun Baura, Hollongi (village headman in Assam) passed an order granting full rights of ownership over the disputed land to her. The petitioner challenged the order in a Civil Appeal. Though the Civil Judge initially stayed the order and directed the parties to maintain status quo, the appeal was dismissed for default after the petitioner's counsel remained absent on three dates.

The petitioner's case was that his counsel had not informed him of the dismissal and that he came to know about it only when the respondent started undertaking activities on the property. He thereafter engaged a new counsel and sought restoration of the appeal.

The High Court noted that the impugned order had also taken into account the previous defaults of appearance of the counsel representing the petitioner.

“Upon perusing the impugned order, it appears that the learned court also took into account the previous default of appearance of the learned counsel representing the present petitioner,” the Court said and also recorded the petitioner's explanation for the non-appearance and the delay.

It further added, “The petitioner has contended that he was unaware of the non-appearance of the learned counsel on the 3 (three) dates and the dismissal of the proceeding for non-prosecution and that he came to know about it only when the respondent started some activities on the concerned property. The petitioner has contended that thereafter, he took steps to engage the new counsel and eventually filed the petition for restoration. The petitioner has also tried to explain the delay in such circumstances.”

The High Court had earlier noted the principle that litigants should not suffer for lapses on the part of their counsel and that sufficient cause for delay must be considered with a justice-oriented approach.

Applying those principles to the petitioner's case, the Court held that the decisions relied upon would not prevent the revisional court from approaching the matter in a justice-oriented manner, keeping in mind the petitioner's contentions and the principles discussed in the judgment.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order dismissing the First Appeal, the judgment of the District Judge in Civil (Misc.) Appeal, and the order dismissing the IA. It also condoned the delay of 123 days in filing the restoration application.

The Court stated, “Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia in First Appeal No. 05/2023 and the judgment and order dated 18-05-2026 passed by the Learned District Judge, Yupia in Civil (Misc.) Appeal No. 2 of 2025 and the order dated 04-08-2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia dismissing IA No. 7/2025 – are hereby set aside. The delay of 123 days in filing the application for restoration of the appeal is also condoned.”

The first appeal was restored for fresh adjudication by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia after giving new opportunities to both sides. The petitioner was, however, directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 as costs before the District Legal Services Authority, Papumpare, Yupia. Both parties were directed to appear before the Civil Judge on September 7, 2026.

Case No.: Crl.Petn./101/2026

Case Title: Kabak Bhatt v. Ms Biki Shapiong

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 127

Case Number: CRP/48/2026

Click Here To Read Judgement