Imposition of a government servant as surety for bail is an onerous condition amounting to denial of bail.

The petitioner, a member of the National Educated Youth Union (NEYU), filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of two detenues, Radheshyam Jat and Surendra Yadav.

The detenues were apprehended by the police on 23.07.2026 to prevent a scheduled peaceful protest intended to show solidarity with students in New Delhi.

The State responded that the detenues were detained under Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) granted bail conditioned upon the detenues furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with a surety from a government servant.

The petitioner challenged this condition as onerous and practically impossible to fulfill.

Whether the condition requiring a government servant to act as a surety for the release of detenues under Section 170 of the BNSS is legally sustainable or amounts to a denial of bail.

Section 170 and Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding preventive detention and the furnishing of security for keeping the peace.

The principle that the grant of bail subject to onerous conditions is impermissible except in exceptional circumstances, citing the Supreme Court precedent in Yashik Jindal vs. Union of India (2023 SCC Online SC 417), which followed Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India (2023) to establish that such conditions which a detenue is unlikely to meet effectively amount to a denial of fundamental rights.

Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) regarding standard bail conditions.

The Court observed that while the ACP purported to grant bail, the specific requirement for a "government servant" to furnish the bond was an unreasonable barrier.

The Court reasoned that a government servant, concerned about their own professional standing and job security, is highly unlikely to stand as a surety for individuals detained for political or social protests.

Consequently, such a condition is not a facilitation of release but a "denial of bail" in disguise.

Applying the ratio from Yashik Jindal, the Court determined that instead of directing the petitioner to exhaust alternative statutory remedies, it was necessary to exercise writ jurisdiction to correct the imposition of this onerous condition.

The Court allowed the petition and modified the bail conditions. It directed that the detenues be released forthwith upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/authority, subject to standard conditions under Section 437(3) of the CrPC.