Introduction

• This case deals with the issue of granting bail by the Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) with or without sureties.
• It was noted in this case that the rights of the accused cannot be nullified by fixing a high amount of surety.

Facts

• The Magistrate ordered the appellant to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate.
  • The Magistrate ordered the surety bond of Rs 10000/- to be produced, but the petitioner could not procure the huge sum by himself.
• The Magistrate made an order refusing to accept suretyship from the petitioner’s brother.
  • The reason recorder for refusing the suretyship from the brother of petitioner was that his assets were in another district.
• The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court to modify the order and release him on furnishing the bond of Rs 2000/- or on executing a personal bond or passing any other order or direction.

Issues Involved

• Whether the High Court or the Subordinate Courts have powers to enlarge a person on his own bond without sureties?
• Whether there are any criteria to quantify the amount of bail while releasing any person on surety?
• Is it within the power of the court to reject a surety because he or his estate is situated in a different District or State?

Observations

• The Court observed that “Social Justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and the little man in peril of losing his liberty is the consumer of social justice”.
• The SC noted that the grant of bail will lose its purpose if the Court is powerless to dispense bail with surety.
  • The Court observed that the basic purpose of bail is to ensure that an accused person undergoes trial if he is out on bail.
• The Court further said that “The discrimination arises even if the amount of the bail fixed by the Magistrate is not high, for a large majority of those who are brought before the Courts in criminal cases are so poor that they would find it difficult to furnish bail even in a small amount”.
• Bail covers release on one's bond with or without sureties, to foster social justice, individual freedom and indigent's rights justify.
• The Court said that Section 436 of CrPC speaks of bail, but the proviso makes a contradiction between bail and own bond without sureties, and this creates ambiguity.
• The Bail covers both release on one’s own bond with or without sureties.
  • Also, when sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on several other factors.

Conclusion

• The Court held that monetary bail is not an indispensable element of the Criminal procedure.
  • The Court said the Magistrate should not consider the points if the person belongs to the south and committed some offence in north and had no money for sureties or he may not know any one there then it's impossible to furnish the sureties.
• The Court ordered the Magistrate to release the petitioner on his own bond in a sum of Rs 1000/-.

Notes

Section 436, CrPC, 1973 - In what cases bail to be taken —

(1) When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail: Provided that such officer or Court, if he or it thinks fit, may, and shall, if such person is indigent and is unable to furnish surety, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.

Explanation. —Where a person is unable to give bail within a week of the date of his arrest, it shall be a sufficient ground for the officer or the Court to presume that he is an indigent person for the purposes of this proviso:

Provided further that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 116 or section 446A.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail-bond as regards the time and place of attendance, the Court may refuse to release him on bail, when on a subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the Court or is brought in custody and any such refusal shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Court to call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof under section 446.