MOTIRAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
- Bench: Krishna Iyer, V.R
- Petitioner: Motiram And Others
- Respondent: State of M.P
Issues
Enlargement on bail with or without sureties.
(1) Can the Court, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, enlarge, on his bond without sureties, a person undergoing incarceration for a non-bailable offence either as undertrial or as a convict who has appealed or sought special leave?
(2) If the Court decides to grant bail with sureties, what criteria should guide it in quantifying the amount of bail, and
(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?
Facts
• Following the decision of the Supreme Court for releasing the petitioner-appellant "on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate," the Magistrate ordered that a surety of Rs 10,000 be produced, but when the petitioner submitted it, the magistrate refused to accept the suretyship of the petitioner's brother because he and his asset were in another district.
• Subsequently, the petitioner sought an order from the court again to modify the previous order and to release him on a surety of Rs 2,000.
• Bail covers release on one's bond with or without sureties, as the legal literature, Indian and Anglo-American on bail jurisprudence lends countenance and the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice, individual freedom and indigent's rights justifies.
• Various sections of CrPC regarding bails were taken into question considering the layers of ambiguity present in them.
Appellant's Contention
• The petitioner's contention was presented in the court mentioning that the petitioner could not afford to procure a huge amount of money for surety. The arguments put forth were that of the disparity or allergy towards various geography involved in the court's decision, it also put forward that India is one and geography cannot be considered as untouchably apart.
• The arguments made points considering the victims that, when suretyship is insisted on or heavy sums are demanded by way of bail or local bailors alone are persona grata, may well be the weaker segments of society like the proletariat, the linguistic and other minorities and distant denizens from the far corners of our country with its vast diversity the grant of bail can be stultified or made impossibly inconvenient and expensive if the court is powerless to dispense with surety or to receive an Indian bailor across the district borders as good or the sum is so excessive that to procure a wealthy surety maybe both exasperating and expensive.
• The counsel representing the petitioner made various points on the procedural codes involved in the process of bail and questioned the rationale behind the court's order of allowing sureties from the same district.
• The counsel sought from the court to release the appellant on a bond of Rs 1,000.
Judgement
The petition was allowed and the petitioner was released as sought by the advocate.
Relevant Paragraphs
(1) 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. And the grant of bail can be stultified or made impossibly inconvenient and expensive if the Court is powerless to dispense with surety or to receive an Indian bailor across the district borders as good or the sum is so excessive that to procure a wealthy surety maybe both exasperating and expensive. The problem is plainly one of human rights, especially freedom vis-a-vis, the lowly and necessitates the Supreme Court to interdict judicial arbitrariness deprivation of liberty and ensure "fair procedure" which has a creative connotation after Maneka Gandhi [1978] 2 SCR 621. [338 C-F. 339 A-B].
(2) Bail covers release on one's bond with or without sureties, as the legal literature, Indian and Anglo-American on bail jurisprudence lends countenance and the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice, individual freedom and indigent's rights justify. When sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variables. [344 G, 347 C]
(3) A semantic smog overlays the provisions of bail in the Code and prisoners' rights when cast in ambiguous language become precarious. [345 C] (a).' Bail' in s. 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code suggests 'with or without sureties. And, 'bail bond` in s.436(2) covers its own bond. [345 E]
(b) 'Bail' in s. 437 (2) suggests release, the accent being on undertaking to appear. when directed, not on the production of sureties. But s. 137(2) distinguishes between bail and bond, without sureties. [345 F-G] 336
(c) Section 445 suggests, especially read with the marginal note that deposit of money will do duty for bond 'with or without sureties'. [345 G]
(d) Superficially viewed, s. 441 ( 1 ) uses the words 'bail' and 'own bond' as antithetical, if the reading is liberal. Incisively understood, Section 441(1) provides for both the bond of the accused and the undertaking of the surety being conditioned in the manner mentioned in the sub-section. To read "ail" as including only cases of release with sureties will stultify the sub-section,for then, an accused released on his own bond without bail, i.e. surety, cannot be conditioned to attend at the appointed place.Section 441(2) uses the word 'bail' to include 'own bond' loosely as meaning one or the other or both. Moreover, an accused, in judicial custody, actual or potential, maybe released by the Court to further the ends of justice and nothing in s 441(1) compels a contrary meaning. S. 441(2) and (3) use the word 'bail' generically because the expression is intended to cover bond with or without sureties; [345 H, 346 A-C]
(e) When the Court of appeal as per the import of s.389(1) may release a convict on his own bond without sureties, surely, it cannot be that an undertrial is worse off than a convict or that the power of the Court to release increases when the guilt is established. It is not the Court's status but the applicant guilt status that is germane. That a guilty man may claim judicial liberation pro tempore without sureties while an undertrial cannot, is a reductio ad absurdum. [346 D-E]
(5) The Supreme Court's powers to enlarge a prisoner, as the wide words of order 21 Rule 27 (Supreme Court Rules 1966) show, contain no limitation based on sureties, which means that a murderer, concurrently found to be so, may. theoretically be released on his own bond without sureties while a suspect, presumed to be innocent cannot be. Such a strange anomaly could not be, even though it is true that the Supreme Court exercises wider powers with greater circumspection. [346 F-G]
(6) If sureties are obligatory even for juveniles, females and sickly accused while they can be dispensed with. after being found guilty, if during the trial when the presence to District lawyers is more necessary, an accused must buy release only with sureties while at the appellate level, suretyship is expendable, there is unreasonable restriction on personal liberty with discrimination writ on the provisions. The hornet's nest of Part III need not be provoked if the Court reads 'bail' to mean that it popularly does. and lexically and in American Jurisprudence is stated to mean, viz. a generic expression used to describe under release from custodia Juris. [347 A-B]
(7) Art. 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Art. 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a Court, for a redress of grievances in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in and State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India, same where valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an Adivasi will be unfree in Free India, and likewise many other minorities. The process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland should be inhibited. Swaraj is made out of united stuff. The best guarantee of presence in Court is the reach of the law, not the money tag. [347 G-H, 348 A-B, D]
The Court left open to the Parliament to consider-whether in our socialist republic with social justice as its hallmark, monetary superstition, not other relevant consideration like family ties, roots in the community, membership of stable organisations should prevail or bail bonds to ensure that the 'bailee' does not flee justice.]
