US EditionEquality Behind Bars: Why Local Surety Requirements Are Unconstitutional
This story is only covered by news sources that have yet to be evaluated by the independent media monitoring agencies we use to assess the quality and reliability of news outlets on our platform. Learn more here.2 Articles
2 Articles
Equality Behind Bars: Why Local Surety Requirements Are Unconstitutional
On September 17, the High Court of Punjab, in the case of Sumit Sharma and another v. State of Haryana, ruled that bail cannot be contingent on a “local surety,” which it said was an “attack” on individual rights. The case arose out of Gurugram, where the two accused persons from Kolkata were charged with cheating and forgery for submitting a false local surety document to be released on bail. Justice Sumeet Goel quashed the FIR under Article 14…
When Bail Becomes a Facade: Punjab & Haryana HC strikes down local surety condition
On September 17, the High Court of Punjab, in the case of Sumit Sharma and another v. State of Haryana, ruled that bail cannot be contingent on a “local surety,” which it said was an “attack” on individual rights. The case arose out of Gurugram, where the two accused persons from Kolkata were charged with cheating and forgery for submitting a false local surety document to be released on bail. Justice Sumeet Goel quashed the FIR under Article 14…
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- There is no tracked Bias information for the sources covering this story.
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
