9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Can the Court, u/s Code of Criminal Procedure, enlarge a person on his own bond without sureties for a non-bailable offence? 2. What criteria should guide the Court in quantifying the amount of bail? 3. 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? Summary: Issue 1: Enlargement on Own Bond Without Sureties The Court examined whether it could release a person on his own bond without sureties for a non-bailable offence. The judgment highlighted that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not explicitly define "bail" but implies it can include release on one's own bond. The Court referenced various legal literature and international practices, noting that bail should not necessarily involve monetary sureties. The judgment emphasized that the power to release on bail should be exercised liberally, especially for indigents, juveniles, women, and the infirm, to ensure social justice and individual freedom. Issue 2: Criteria for Quantifying Bail Amount The Court discussed the criteria for determining the bail amount, stressing that it should not be so high as to effectively deny bail to the poor. The judgment criticized the practice of setting exorbitant bail amounts, which discriminates against the poor and undermines the principle of equal justice. The Court underscored that the amount should be reasonable and take into account the accused's financial capacity, community ties, and other relevant factors. Issue 3: Rejection of Surety from Different District or State The Court addressed the issue of rejecting sureties based on geographic location, condemning it as a form of judicial provincialism that disrupts national unity. The judgment asserted that requiring sureties from the same district is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Court mandated that sureties from any part of India should be accepted, ensuring that all citizens are treated equally regardless of their geographic origin. Conclusion: The Court mandated the release of the petitioner on his own bond of Rs. 1,000/-, emphasizing the need for bail reform to ensure that monetary considerations do not override other relevant factors like community ties and family connections. The judgment called for legislative action to align bail practices with the principles of social justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution. The petition was allowed.
|
