Criminal Procedure Code 1973

Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand-20/09/1977

AIR 1977 SC 2447 : (1978) 1 SCR 535 : (1977) 4 SCC 308 : (1978) CriLJ SC 195

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

The State of Rajasthan, Jaipur
Appellant

Versus

Balchand
Respondent

(Before : V. R. Krishna Iyer And N. L. Untwalia, JJ.)

Criminal Misc. Petn. Nos. 1424-1425 in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1977, Decided on : 20-09-1977.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 437 and 389—Bail—Considerations for—Acquittal by High Court—Special Leave against acquittal granted—The accused is young man with a family to maintain—No possibility of abscondance of other abuse—Bail granted.

The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

Counsel for the Parties:

Mr. S. M. Jain, for Appellant

Mr. D. Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate (M/s. V. S. Dave, R. C. Tyagi and S. S. Khanduja, Advocates with him), for Respondent

Mr. I. Makwaha, Advocate, for Intervener/Complainant.

Judgement

Krishna Iyer, J—The petitioner moves for bail having surrendered after leave was granted to the State to file an appeal against acquittal by the High Court.

2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial Court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baran once every fortnight.

4. The petitioner will be released on bail on his entering into a bond of his own and one surety for ` 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the Addl. District and Sessions. Judge, Baran. While the system of pecuniary bail has a tradition behind it, the time has come for re-thinking on the subject. It may well be that in most cases not monetary suretyship but undertaking by relations of the petitioner or organisation to which he belongs may be better and more socially relevant. Even so, in this case we stick to the practice and direct the furnishing of one surety for ` 5,000/-.

5. Application for intervention allowed.