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.

CURRENT SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

Union of India Vs. Rajendra N. Shah & Anr-20/07/21 - These appeals raise an important question as to the vires of the Constitution (Ninety Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 [the "Constitution 97th Amendment Act"] which inter alia introduced Part IXB under the chapter heading 'The Co-operative Societies'. The Constitution 97th Amendment Act was passed by the requisite majority of the Lok Sabha on 27.12.2011 and the Rajya Sabha on 28.12.2011.
K.P. Natarajan & Anr. Vs. Muthalammal & Ors-16/07/2021 - There is no dispute on facts and there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondents have been grossly negligent in defending the suit as well as the execution proceedings. But the fact remains that while the parties can afford to remain negligent, the Court cannot. The High Court has found, after summoning the records from the trial Court that as a matter of fact, the trial Court failed to appoint a guardian for the third respondent/minor in a manner prescribed by law.
Sachin Kashyap & Ors. Vs. Sushil Chandra Srivastava & Ors-15/07/2021 - Writ Petition having been filed for a particular cause and with a particular prayer cannot be expanded to cover within its ambit all the issues which may be of general or public importance without there being any pleadings or prayer with regard to a particular issue.
Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr-14/07/2021 - The Madras Bar Association has filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and Sections 184 and 186 (2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 as ultra vires Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as these are violative of the principles of separation of powers and independence of judiciary

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy-09/07/2021 - The American information technology sector has long been an engine of innovation and growth, but today a small number of dominant Internet platforms use their power to exclude market entrants, to extract monopoly profits, and to gather intimate personal information that they can exploit for their own advantage.
Blocking Property and Suspending Entry Into USA of Certain Persons Contributing to Destabilizing Situation in Western Balkans-EO-08/06/21 - All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State
Threat posed by military Industry of China- Biden Issued Executive Order-03/06/2021 - I find that the use of Chinese surveillance technology outside the PRC and the development or use of Chinese surveillance technology to facilitate repression or serious human rights abuse constitute unusual and extraordinary threats, which have their source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and I hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13959 to address those threats.
Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity-EO 12/05/2021 - The United States faces persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns that threaten the public sector, the private sector, and ultimately the American people’s security and privacy. The Federal Government must improve its efforts to identify, deter, protect against, detect, and respond to these actions and actors. The Federal Government must also carefully examine what occurred during any major cyber incident and apply lessons learned. But cybersecurity requires more than government action.

© Advocatetanmoy Law Library

Like this:

Related