This article has been written by Ms. Kamini, a 3rd Year LL.B Student From,               Campus Law Centre, Delhi University

Decided on: – 24, August, 1978

INTRODUCTION

This case is significant as it highlights the importance of fair and just bail laws in the Indian judicial system. This case pertains to a petition filed by the petitioners seeking bail or release from custody in a criminal case. 

The case emphasizes the importance of social justice as a fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution, particularly in safeguarding the rights of the marginalized and underprivileged individuals, who are at risk of losing their liberty. The court recognizes that granting bail can become difficult and costly when sureties are demanded or when the amount of bail is excessive, especially for those who are economically disadvantaged.  

The Supreme Court must intervene to prevent arbitrary decisions by the judiciary that infringe on an individual’s liberty and ensure a fair procedure. Bail can involve either own bond or bond with sureties, depending on the circumstances. The court should take into account various factors when deciding on the necessity and amount of sureties. A liberal interpretation of the law is necessary in cases where social justice, individual freedom, and the rights of indigent individuals are at stake.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• The petitioner, in this case was a mason, he was directed to release on bail on the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
• That Magistrate ordered a surety of Rs. 10,000/- to be produced, which was produced by his brother, but the magistrate refused to accept on the ground that his brother and his assets were in another district.
• Then Petitioner moves to Supreme Court to modify original order, seeking release on personal bond or lower the surety amount.
• The Hon’ble Court has instructed the Magistrate to release the petitioner on their own bond of Rs. 1,000/-.

ISSUE:

• Can the court enlarge a person’s bond without sureties for a non-bailable offense either as under trial or a convict who has appealed or sought special leave?
• What criteria should guide the court in quantifying the amount of bail if it decides to grant bail with sureties?
• Is it within the court’s power to reject a surety because he or his estate is located in a different district or state?

OBSERVATION

• That the code does not provide a clear definition of bail, although they classifies bailable and non- bailable offences, also sections related to bail are unclear and prone to judicial arbitrariness. 

• The term “bail” in Section 436 of the Cr.P.C., can refer to release with or without sureties, and “bail bond” in Section 436(2) of the Code can cover an accused’s own bond. Section 437(2) of the Code emphasizes the undertaking to appear when directed, rather than the production of sureties. Section 445 of the Code suggests that deposit of money can serve as a bond with or without sureties. Section 441(1) of the Code provides for both the bond of the accused and the undertaking of the surety to attend at the appointed place, and the word “bail” in this context should not be interpreted solely as release with sureties. Sections 441(2) and (3) use the term “bail” generically to cover bond with or without sureties. Overall, Bail cover both release on one’s own bond, with or without sureties. Courts should be liberal in releasing poor men, Indians in monetary terms, indigents, young persons, infirm individuals, and women on their own recognizances with reasonable conditions.

• That magistrate should know that monetary bail is not a necessary element of the criminal process, there are other factors that can deter an accused from fleeing from justice. If the accused has roots in the community and is unlikely to flee, then the magistrate can consider releasing them on their own recognizance or ordering them to appear after conducting an inquiry into their background and circumstances. 

• They also observed that in India there is need to reform the concept. The Gujarat committee found that the system is based on the assumption that the risk of financial loss will prevent the accused from feeling, but this is doubtful validity, because poor people cannot furnish bail due to their poverty, while wealthier people in similar situations can secure their freedom because they can afford to furnish bail.

• That magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district, which is unfair for those who are from different regions and may not know anyone in that district, it is discriminatory and goes against principles of equality before the law and representation in any language used in the Union of India are protected by Articles 14 and 350 of the Indian Constitution, respectively. The use of different languages in legal proceedings should be accepted and protected, as it is crucial to ensuring that all citizens have equal access to justice. The court suggested the Parliament to examine the use of bail bonds and to ensure that they do not unfairly restrict personal liberty or discriminate against certain groups. 

• While answering all the 3 issue court observed that:

1. Regarding First issue, court answer in positive and said that the Court has the authority to enlarge a person’s bond without sureties even for non-bailable offenses, whether the person is an undertrial or a convict who has appealed or sought special leave, it means person can be released from custody without having to provide any other person as surety for their appearance in court.

1. Regarding Second issue, Court said that the need for sureties and the amount required depends on various factors. However, certain groups such as financially disadvantaged individuals, young people, the infirm, and women, should be treated with leniency by the courts when it comes to requiring sureties. In such cases, the court should consider releasing them on their own recognizance with reasonable conditions.

1. Regarding Third issue, court answer in negative, and said that it was shocked to learn that the petitioner, a mason, was asked to provide sureties worth Rs, 10,000, and that the magistrate insisted on sureties from his own district. The court noted that there is no law that requires sureties to be from a specific region or that application be made in a particular language. Equality before the law means that legal documents in another state language must be recognized throughout India, unless valid legislation dictates otherwise. Failure to do so would limit the freedom of minority groups, such as adivasis, in a supposedly free country.

JUDGMENT            

     Thus, the Hon’ble court held that requiring the petitioner, a mason, to furnish sureties for Rs. 10,000/- was unreasonable and unconstitutional. The court also criticized the practice of requiring sureties from the same district and emphasized that all Indians have the right to equal protection under the law regardless of their linguistic or geographic background.

The court further said that, the language used in the bail provisions of the Code is ambiguous, leading to confusion and uncertainty regarding prisoners’ rights, because the provision of the Code suggest that “Bail” can be granted “with or without sureties”. The power of the court to release an accused on their own bond without sureties should not be limited based on the accused’s guilt status, as it would lead to an absurd situation where a guilty person can be released without sureties while an innocent person cannot. 

Parliament should consider whether monetary superstition or other relevant factors should prevail from bail bonds in our socialist republic with social justice as its hallmark. The reach of the law is the best guarantee of presence in court, not the amount of money put up for bail. Procedural laws need to be rewritten to prevent the indigent from being betrayed by the law, including bail law.

Finally, court ordered the petitioner to be released on his own bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000/-.

REFERENCE

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1912056