 Sultan Kamruddin Dharani v.

The Union of India (Supreme Court)

section 436 of the Code of 1973 shows that there is no provision therein which gives power to
the Court to impose any condition while enlarging an accused on bail in a case where bailable
offence is alleged. In fact, the first proviso of the said section lays down that if an accused is
indigent and is unable to furnish surety, the Court is under an obligation to discharge him on his
executing a bond without sureties for his appearance. The explanation to sub-section (1) of
section 436 provides that when a person is unable to give bail within a week of his arrest, it shall
be a sufficient ground for the Officer or a Court to presume that he is an indigent person for the
purposes of this proviso. Thus, the law makes it clear that when an accused who is alleged of
commission of a bailable offence is unable to furnish bail in the form of surety within a week
from his arrest, he has to be discharged on his executing a bond
 The Bombay High Court in Subhash Atmaram Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra observed that
“the cases under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are tried as summary cases and
attendance of the accused is secured by issuance of process of summons. In such cases the
learned Magistrate shall also take note of the legal position that execution of personal bond and
surety bond is not a condition precedent for commencement of trial”.