C482/523/2020 of SUNNY ALIAS MANHENDER SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Misc. Application No. 523 of 2020

Sunny @ Manhender Singh

State of Uttarakhand

Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Brief Holder for the State.

.......Petitioner

.....Respondent

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

question comes for consideration is that as to whether an accused in jail may be required to furnish ‘local sureties’ as condition precedent for his release on bail?

2. The petitioner herein is involved in Case Crime No. 2 of 2020, under Sections 120-B, 201 and 302 IPC, Revenue Police Circle Nalgaon, District Chamoli. On 07.07.2020, he was granted bail subject to his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two local sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The challenge is to ‘local sureties’.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is driver, who was working in district Chamoli. It is contended that he may not be able to get ‘local sureties’ for his release on bail and this condition of ‘local sureties’ is, in fact, denial of bail to him. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the case of Moti Ram and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1978) 4 SCC 47.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner is involved in heinous crime and there are chances of him absconding that is why, local sureties are required.

5. Needless to say, bail is rule and jail is an exception. Bail, if denied, on the ground of non-availability of resources or approach would definitely be travesty of justice. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees life and personal liberty to all also provide that its deprivation can only, be in accordance with law.

6. In the case of Moti Ram (supra), this aspect of sureties have been widely discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In para 30 of the judgment Hon’ble Court observed that:-

“The hornet's nest of Part III need not be provoked if we read 'bail' to mean that it popularly does, and lexically and in American Jurisprudence is stated to mean, viz. generic expression used to describe judicial release from custodia juris. Bearing in mind the need for liberal interpretation in the areas of social justice, individual freedom and indigents's rights, we hold that bail covers both-release on one's own bond, with or without sureties. When sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variables.”

In para 32, the Hon’ble Court observed as hereunder:-

“It shocks one’s conscience to ask mason like the petitioner to furnish sureties for Rs. 10,000. The magistrate must be given the benefit of doubt for not fully appreciating that our Constitution enacted by 'We, the People of India', is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker-shall we add, the bonded labour and pavement dweller.”

In an afterward in the same judgment, the Hon’ble Court observed that:-

“…………..And the judiciary will do well to remember that the geo-legal frontiers of the Central Codes cannot be disfigured by cartographic dissection in the name of language or province.”

7. Undoubtedly, ensuring presence of an accused during trial is one of the main factors while considering the bail application. Bail has been granted to the petitioner. What he urges is that he cannot produce ‘local sureties’.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant would urge that the phrase “local sureties” may be changed as “the sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate” and according to him that is what Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down.

9. This Court is of the view that requiring ‘local sureties’ in district Chamoli from driver like petitioner, who comes from State of Punjab would, in fact, amount to denial of bail. And, this denial is not on the ground of offence or other factor instead, it would be denial of bail to the petitioner for his inability to get ‘locals’ as surety. It should not be done. Inability to get specified category of sureties should not be constraint for release on bail Therefore, this Court modifies the bail order as follows:-

“The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- and two sureties of each like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate concerned.”

10. The Bail order dated 07.07.2020 passed in Bail Application number 23 of 2020 by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) stands modified accordingly.

11. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

12. Let copy of this order be sent to the learned court below through e-mail also.

Shubham

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

27.07.2020