Chima Judgment

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.A. 1365/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:

CHIMA AKUMA …....APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE . . .RESPONDENTS
INDEX
S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE. NO
1. In Re Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail 2023 Scc 1-9
Online Sc 483.
2. Jerry Akubueze Awama @ Solo @ Solomon Akubueze 10-11
Nwama V/S State of Nct of Delhi Bail Application
948/2022
3. Sehnaz V/S State Bail CRL.A. 447/2020 12-13
4. State of Chhattisgarh V/s Bhavan Singh and Others 2022 14-18
SCC OnLine Chh 1020
5. Ajay Verma V/S Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2017 SCC 19-31
OnLine Del 12743
6. R.D Upadhyay V/S State of A.P and others (1996) 3 32-34
SCC 422
7. Shankara and Others V/s State ILR (1996) I Delhi 35-41
8. Moti Ram and Others V/S State of Madhya Pradesh. 42-52
(1978) 4 SCC 47
New Delhi Adarsh Priyadarshi And Associates

Date 08/04/2024 Advocate for Appellant
A2/74, LGF, Safdarjung Enclave
New delhi-110029.
Mobile No: +91- 8806662746.
E mail Id :Priyadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com
see
ONLINE
The surest cuayto legal research !
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, April 08, 2024
Printed For: Apoorv Shankar, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 SCC OnLine SC 483
In the Supreme Court of India

(BEFORE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.)
SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021

In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail … Petitioner
(s).
(Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Adv. is Amicus Curiae
IA No. 203407/2022 - Intervention Application) Ia No.
203408/2022-Directions
IA No. 21741/20330 Exemption from Filing O.T
With
SLP(Crl) No. 529/2021 (II-C)
(For Admission and I.R and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Advocate
(A.C.), Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate for National Legal Services
Authority, Mr. Devansh A. Mohta, Advocate (A.C.), Mr. Abhimanyu
Tewari, Advocate for State of Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. Yogesh
Kanna, Advocate for State of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Chanchal K. Ganguli,
Advocate for State of West Bengal, Mrs. Niranjana Singh Advocate
for State of Bihar, Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate for State of
Rajasthan, Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advocate for High Court of Gujrat, Mr.
Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advocate for State of Uttar Pradesh,
Mahfooz A Nazki for State of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Sachin Patil for
State of Maharashtra, Mr. Subhranshu Padhi for State of Karnataka,
Mr. Garvesh Kabra for State of Up, Mr. G.S Makker for Andaman
and Nicobar Islands, Mr. Harshad V Hameed for State of Kerala, Mr.
Shovan Mishra, Advocate for State of Odisha, Dr. Monika Gusain,
Advocate for State of Haryana and Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Advocate
for State of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande,
Advocate for State of Maharashtra, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh
Kumar, Advocate for State of Manipur, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,
Advocate for State of Gujarat, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate for
State of Assam, Mr. Pashupatinath Razdan, Advocate for State of
Mp. [For Further Directions])
SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021, IA No. 203407/2022, IA No.
21741/20330 and SLP(Crl) No. 529/2021 (II-C)
Decided on January 31, 2023
Advocates who appeared in this case:
By Courts Motion, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Adv. (AC)
see
ONLINE
2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. (AC)

Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Devansh A Mohta, Adv. (AC) (NP)
For Petitioner(s)
Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR (AC)
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG
Mr. Jayant Sud, Ld. ASG
Mr. Mukesh K Verma, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj K Sharma, Adv.
Mrs. Indra Bhaker, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Satiya, Adv.
Mr. S.N. Terdol, AOR
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Ms. Prachi Mishra, A.A.G.
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Arora, Adv.
Mr. Partha Sil, AOR
Mr. Tavish Bhushan Prasad, Adv.
Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee, Adv.
Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, D.A.G.
Mr. Paras Dutta, Adv.
Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv.
Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR
Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR
Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv.
Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv.
Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv.
Ms. Garima Verma, Adv.
Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, Sr. Adv.
see
ONLINE
3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Raghavendra S Srivatsa, AOR

Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R., Adv.
Mr. Likhi Chand Bonsle, Adv.
Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv.
Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR
Mr. A. Hari Prasad, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. V. K. Biju, AOR
Ms. Ria Sachthey, Adv.
Mr. Chetanya Singh, Adv.
Dr. Ranjit Bharti, Adv.
Mrs. Rubina Jawed, Adv.
Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR
Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, AOR
Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR
Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv.
Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv.
Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR
M/S. KSN & Co., AOR
Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR
Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv.
Mr. Subhash Chandran K.r., Adv.
Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv.
Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv.
Mr. Akash Singh, Adv.
Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Ms. Sampriti B., Adv.
Mr. Nirminesh Dube, AOR
see
ONLINE
4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR

Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Garg, Adv.
Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR
Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv.
Ms. Prachi Mishra, A.A.G.
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Arora, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Dy. A.G.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Manoj Kukmar, Adv.
Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv.
For M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR
Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv.
Ms. Bhupinder, Adv.
Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka C., Adv.
Mr. V.K. Khanna, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.
Ms. Yamini Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Niharika Dewedi, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv.
For Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR
Mr. Shobhit Jain, Adv.
Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv.
Mr. Sagun Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
Mr. Abbas b., Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv.
see
ONLINE
5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR

Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
Mrs. Anupama Ngangom, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR
Mr. Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Kynpham V. Khalyngdoh, Adv.
Mr. Daniel Lyngdoh, Adv.
Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv.
Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv.
Mr. P.S. Negi, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shreyaj Awasthi, Adv.
Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv.
Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv.
Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv.
Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, AOR
Mr. Chetan Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Prasanna, Adv.
Ms. Priyal Garg, Adv.
Mr. Udit Bakshi, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR
Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR
Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR
Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv.
Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Adv.
Mr. Pashupatinath Razdan, AOR
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, AOR
Mr. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumitra G Chaudhuri, Adv.
Mr. Shashwat Panda, Adv.
Ms. Vandana Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Simran Singh, Adv.
Mr. Chanchal K Ganguli, AOR
seeONLINE
6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Niranjana Singh, AOR

Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
Mr. Subhranshu Padhi, AOR
Mrs. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv./AAG
Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR
Mr. Savesh Singh Baghel, AOR
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mrs. K Enatoli Sema, AOR
Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv./AAG
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR
Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Adv.
Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv.
Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv.
Mr. Umesh Kr. Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Keshari, Adv.
Ms. Sweta, Adv.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Yash S Vijay, Adv.
Mr. Chandratannay Chubey, Adv.
ORDER
1. It is pointed out that there is bereavement in the family of Mr.
Devansh A. Mohta, learned Amicus Curiae and the matter may be
deferred for consideration.
2. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned Amicus Curiae however, submits that
some aspects with which Mr. Mohta is not concerned at present can be
dealt with.
SMWP(CRIMINAL) NO. 4/2021:
EXECUTION OF BAIL ORDERS
3. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned Amicus Curiae has drawn our
attention to order dated 29.11.2022 qua the issue of undertrial
prisoners who continue to be in custody despite having been granted
the benefit of bail on account of their inability to fulfill the conditions.
In this behalf the report by the NALSA has been placed before us filed
see
ONLINE
7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on 30.01.2023. After recording the discussions which have been held, it

has been stated in para 5 of the report that there are 5,000 undertrial
prisoners who were in jail, despite grant of bail, out of which, 2,357
persons were provided legal assistance and now 1,417 persons have
since been released.
4. One of the main reasons flagged why the accused are in jail
despite the grant of bail is that he may be an accused in multiple cases
and is apparently not willing to furnish bail bonds until he is given bail
in all the cases as undertrial custody will be counted in all the cases.
5. De hors this, it is pointed out that to ensure that the remaining
undertrial prisoners who are unable to furnish surety or bail bonds due
to poverty, NALSA is in the process of creating a master data of all such
undertrial prisoners in excel sheet with all relevant details, including,
reasons for non-release and steps qua persons who are unable to
furnish bail bonds or surety are being taken up with the respective
SLSAs/DLSAs and result would be obtainable in about one or two
months' time.
6. Learned Amicus Curiae has also drawn our attention to the
discussions with Shri Shashikant Sharma, HOD and Sr. Technical
Director of NIC recording that five meetings were held along with the
participation of Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG and Home Ministry
officials. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been prepared by
NIC which also deals with this aspect. A relevant aspect is that the NIC
e-prison software, which is working in about 1,300 jails in the country,
would now have a field where the date of grant of bail would have to be
entered by the jail authorities. If the accused is not released within
seven days of the date of grant of bail, the e-prison software would
automatically generate a flag/reminder and simultaneously the e-mail
would be sent to the office of the concerned DLSA so that the DLSA can
find out the reason for non-release of the accused. The SOP has para
2.4 under the heading “Bailed out but not Released” which facility
enables prison user to access the data of inmates, to assist in
identifying inmates who are bailed out but not released due to some
reasons like sureties or pending cases.
7. Insofar as the discussion with TISS is concerned, some
suggestions are stated to be made but learned Amicus Curiae submits
that a more detailed work out of that is necessary.
8. Another issue which has crept up during discussion is whether the
Government would give access to this portal on a protected basis to the
Secretaries of the SLSAs and DLSAs which would facilitate better follow
up.
9. We call upon the Government of India to discuss this issue with
NALSA so that necessary directions, if any, can be passed. Learned ASG
would obtain instructions in that behalf by the next date.
see
ONLINE
K

8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. With a view to ameliorate the problems a number of directions

are sought. We have examined the directions which we reproduce
hereinafter with certain modifications:
“1) The Court which grants bail to an undertrial prisoner/convict
would be required to send a soft copy of the bail order by e-mail
to the prisoner through the Jail Superintendent on the same day
or the next day. The Jail Superintendent would be required to
enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prisons software [or any
other software which is being used by the Prison Department].
2) If the accused is not released within a period of 7 days from the
date of grant of bail, it would be the duty of the Superintendent of
Jail to inform the Secretary, DLSA who may depute para legal
volunteer or jail visiting advocate to interact with the prisoner and
assist the prisoner in all ways possible for his release.
3) NIC would make attempts to create necessary fields in the e-
prison software so that the date of grant of bail and date of
release are entered by the Prison Department and in case the
prisoner is not released within 7 days, then an automatic email
can be sent to the Secretary, DLSA.
4) The Secretary, DLSA with a view to find out the economic
condition of the accused, may take help of the Probation Officers
or the Para Legal Volunteers to prepare a report on the socio-
economic conditions of the inmate which may be placed before
the concerned Court with a request to relax the condition (s) of
bail/surety.
5) In cases where the undertrial or convict requests that he can
furnish bail bond or sureties once released, then in an appropriate
case, the Court may consider granting temporary bail for a
specified period to the accused so that he can furnish bail bond or
sureties.
6) If the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the
date of grant bail, the concerned Court may suo moto take up the
case and consider whether the conditions of bail require
modification/relaxation.
7) One of the reasons which delays the release of the
accused/convict is the insistence upon local surety. It is
suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose the
condition of local surety.”
11. We order that the aforesaid directions shall be complied with.
IA No. 203407/2022-INTERVENTION, IA NO. 203408/2022-
DIRECTIONS AND 21741/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T
12. Application for exemption from filing O.T. is allowed.
13. IA No. 203407/2022 and IA NO. 203408/2022 have been filed
see
ONLINE
9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for intervention and appropriate directions by the National Law

University, Delhi through Fair Trial Fellowship Programme under Project
39A.
14. We are of the view that instead of looking to the suggestions and
directions sought, more appropriate course of action would be for Shri
Gaurav Agrawal, learned Amicus to look into them on behalf of the
NALSA and accordingly make suggestions to us taking them as inputs.
15. List the applications along with SMWP(Criminal) No. 4/2021 and
SLP(Crl) No. 529/2021 on 28.03.2023.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.
10
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 948/2022
JERRY AKUBUEZE NWAMA @ SOLO @ SOLOMON
AKUBUEZE NWAMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Anoop Kumar Gupta and Ms
Gunjan Gupta, Advs.
versus
STATE, NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent

Through: Mr Aashneet Singh, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 17.02.2023
CRL.M.A. 4459/2023
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 4458/2023
This is an application seeking modification of the order dated
30.01.2023.
The applicant seeks modification of condition Nos. 18 (i) and 18 (iii)
of the order dated 30.01.2023.
As per condition No. 18 (i) of the said order, the applicant was
required to furnish a personal bond and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh
each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. It is stated that the applicant has
been in jail for 7 years and hence, he is unable to furnish this kind of surety.
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2024 at 18:11:11
11
In this view of the matter, the condition No. 18 (i) is modified and the
applicant is directed to furnish personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with
one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Condition No. 18 (iii) of the order dated 30.01.2023 requires the
applicant to furnish a certificate of assurance to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court issued by the Embassy of the applicant‟s country. Condition No. 18
(iii) is modified that the applicant shall furnish certificate of assurance
within 60 days of the applicant being released from jail to the IO. In case,
the applicant has a problem in getting certificate of assurance from the
Embassy, the applicant shall file an affidavit indicating the steps taken and
the reason why the Embassy has not furnished certificate of assurance to the
applicant before the Trial Court.
All other terms and conditions of the order dated 30.01.2023 shall
remain unchanged.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
JASMEET SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
sr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

12
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 447/2020
SEHNAZ ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Adv. DHCLSC
with Mr. Jasir Aftab, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sabharwal, APP for State,
W/Insp. Seema Singh, SHO CWC,
Nanak pura
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 01.06.2022
CRL.M.A. 11219/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 11218/2022
The applicant’s sentence was suspended on 19.01.2022 but she was
not able to avail the benefit of the same for want of 2 sureties. Hence, on
08.03.2022, this Court modified the condition, wherein personal bond and
surety was reduced to Rs. 15,000/- and the surety was permitted to be
somebody other than a family member. However, the applicant has not been
able to comply with the said condition as well.
The counsel for the applicant has taken me through the memo of
parties, wherein the residential address of the applicant is shown as Guddi

13
KI Makan, Nasbandi Colony, Bengali Masjid, Loni, Dist. Ghaziabad, U.P.

He submits that in this case, the condition of 08.03.2022 requires
further modification. In the present case, the applicant has a permanent place
of residence which is the above address. Hence, he requests that the
applicant must be released on personal bond only, without any surety.
I am of the view that once an order of suspension has been passed, the
applicant must be entitled to its benefit in its true letter, spirit and intent.
Every day of freedom matters and the applicant cannot be made to stay in
jail for the reason that she could not furnish surety.
In this view of the matter, I further modify the condition imposed vide
order dated 08.03.2022 and direct the applicant to be released on a personal
bond of Rs. 10,000/-. The applicant, however, shall report to the nearest
local police station at Ghaziabad twice a week, i.e. on Monday and
Thursday.
It is further directed that the applicant shall share her mobile no. with
the Investigating Officer and mobile no. shall be operational at all times.
The live pin of the location of applicant shall also be on all the time.
The name of the Investigating Officer is Insp. Ms. Seema Singh and
her mobile no. is 8750870066.
With the above direction, the application is disposed of.
JASMEET SINGH, J
JUNE 1, 2022/dm
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

seeONLINE
14
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 SCC OnLine Chh 1020
In the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

(Before Sanjay K. Agrawal and Rajani Dubey, JJ.)
State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer Marwahi ...

Appellants;
Versus
Bhawan Singh and Others ... Respondents.
CRA No. 1607 of 2015
Decided on May 11, 2022
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.:— This is extremely unfortunate case where though the
appellants herein had been admitted to privilege of bail by order of this Court dated
29.04.2016 and were directed to furnish bail bonds with one solvent surety each for
their release, but they could not furnish bail bonds on the ground of their poverty and
being member of Scheduled Tribe community and are still in jail for more than six
years despite bail have been granted by suspending their jail sentence and now in
shape of IA No. 03 an application has been filed seeking modification of the aforesaid
order dated 29.04.2016, permitting them to be released on personal bond(s).
2. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the family
members of the appellants are not in contact with the appellants and, therefore, they
have preferred the instant appeal through legal aid. They are poor villagers and belong
to Scheduled Tribe community and are continuously incarcerated in jail since
11.08.2013, thus, they are unable to comply with the conditions stipulated by this
Court in the order dated 29.04.2016 while granting bail to them and, because of
which, they could not be released on bail. This fact has also been brought to the notice
of the Secretary, High Court Legal Aid Services Committee by the jail authorities vide
its letter dated 13.04.2022. He relied on an order passed by this Court in the case of
Pardeshi @ Ratiram @ Raturam v. State of Chhattisgarh- wherein this Court relying on
the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Moti Ram v. State of M.P.- and
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar3- directed the appellants
therein to be released on bail on their executing only personal bond and exempted
other conditions stipulated earlier while granting bail to the appellants therein. Hence,
praying similar direction modification in the order dated 29.04.2016 is prayed for.
3. Learned State counsel submits that appropriate order in this regard be passed.
4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made hereinabove and also went through the record with utmost
circumspection.
5. The question which arose for consideration before us is whether the appellants
can be released on bail on their executing only personal bond without insisting them
to furnish bail bonds alongwith sureties.
6. In order to decide the plea, it would be appropriate to notice Section 389(1) of
CrPC by which sentence awarded to an accused person convicted for an offence can be
suspended in pending appeal and he can be released on bail, which states as under:
"389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on
seeONLINE
15
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bail.
(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for
reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or
order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be
released on bail, or on his own bond."
7. A careful perusal of the provisions contained in Section 389(1) of CrPC would
show that the Legislature has consciously empowered the Appellate Court to suspend
the substantive jail sentence of a convicted person, for the reasons to be recorded in
the order, pending final disposal of the criminal appeal filed by him, and if he is in
confinement, he be released on bail or on his own bond as, such, it is absolutely
discretionary in nature and it is for the Appellate Court to decide as to whether an
accused can be released on bail or on his own bond by suspending his substantive jail
sentence.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Moti Ram (supra) considered the issue whether
the Appellate Court is empowered to enlarge convicted accused on his own bond
without sureties and in Para-3 of the judgment their Lordships framed three questions,
out of which we are concerned here only with Questions No. (1), which states as
under:
"3 (1) Can the Court, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, enlarge, on his
own bond without sureties, a person undergoing incarceration for a non-bailable
offence either as undertrial or as convict who has appealed or sought special leave?
9. Thereafter, their Lordships relying upon Gujarat Committee Report proceeded to

answer the aforesaid question in Para-14, 18, 18A, 20, 27, 30 & 31 which reads thus:
"14. The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Defendants presumed
innocent are subjected to the psychological and physical deprivations of jail life,
usually under more onerous conditions than are imposed on convicted defendants.
The jailed defendant loses his job is he has one and is prevented from contributing
to the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the burden of his detention
frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family.
18. The Encyclopaedia Britannica brings out the same point even in more affluent
societies:
"Bail, procedure by which a judge or magistrate sets at liberty one who has
been arrested or imprisoned, upon receipt of security to ensure the released
prisoner's later appearance in court for further proceedings .. Failure to consider
financial ability has generated much controversy in recent years, for bail
requirements may discriminate against poor people and certain minority groups
who are thus deprived of an equal opportunity to secure their freedom pending
trial. Some courts now give special consideration to indigent accused persons
who, because of their community standing and past history, are considered likely
to appear in court. [Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. I, p.736 (15th Edn) Micro
Edn.]"
18A. Again :
"We should suggest that the Magistrate must always bear in mind that
monetary bail is not a necessary element of the Criminal process and even if risk
of monetary loss is a deterrent against fleeing from justice, it is not the only
deterrent and there are other factors which are sufficient deterrents against
flight.
The Magistrate must abandon the antiquated concept under which pre-trial
release could be ordered only against monetary bail. That concept is out-dated
seeONLINE
16
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and experience has shown that it has done more harm than good. The new
insight into the subject of pre-trial release which has now been developed in
socially advanced countries and particularly the United State should now inform
the decisions of the Magistrates in regard to pre-trial release. Every other feasible
method of pre-trial release should be exhausted before resorting to monetary
bail. The practice which is now being followed in the United States is that the
accused should ordinarily be released on order to appear or on his own
recognizance unless it is shown that there is substantial risk of non-appearance
or there are circumstances justifying imposition of conditions on release .. If a
Magistrate is Satisfied after making an enquiry into the condition and
background of the accused that the accused has his roots in the community and
is not likely to abscond, he can safely release the accused on order to appear or
on his own recognizance "
(emphasis added)
20. Thus, the legal literature, Indian and Anglo-American, on bail jurisprudence
lends countenance to the contention that bail, loosely used, is comprehensive
enough to cover release on ones own bond with or without sureties.
27. The slippery aspect is dispelled when we understand the import of Sec. 389
(1) which reads:
389 (1) : Pending any appeal by a convicted person the Appellate Court may,
for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the
sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in
confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond.
The court of appeal may release a convict on his own bond without sureties.
Surely, it cannot be that an under-trial is worse of 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's guilt status that is germane. That a guilty man may claim
judicial liberation pro tempore without sureties while an undertrial cannot is a
reduetio ad absurdam.
30. If sureties are obligatory even for juveniles, females and sickly accused while
they can be dispensed with, after being found guilty, if during trial when the
presence to instruct 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 we read 'bail' to
mean that it popularly docs, and lexically and in American Jurisprudence is stated
to Mean, viz., a generic expression used to describe judicial release from custodia
juris. Bearing in mind the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice,
individual freedom and indigent's rights, we hold that bail covers both-release on
one's own bond, with or without sureties. When sureties should be demanded and
what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variables.
31. Even so, poor men-Indians are, in monetary terms, indigents-young persons
infirm individuals and women are weak categories and courts should be liberal in
releasing them on their own recognisancesput whatever reasonable conditions you
may."
10. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon (supra) held
that an accused can be released on bail on his executing personal bond also. Relying
upon the decision of Moti Ram (supra), Justice R.S. Pathak, though in his separate,
but in a concurrinq opinion held in Para-8 as under:
seeONLINE
17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"8. In regard to the exercise of the judicial power to release a prisoner awaiting
trial on bail or on the execution of a personal bond without sureties for his
appearance, I have to say this briefly. There is an amplitude of power in this regard
within the existing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it is for the
courts to fully acquaint themselves with the nature and extent of their discretion in
exercising it. I think it is no longer possible to countenance a mechanical exercise of
the power. What should be the amount of security required or the monetary
obligation demanded in a bond is a matter calling for the careful consideration of
several factors. The entire object being only to ensure that the undertrial does not
flee and hide himself from trial, all the relevant considerations which enter into the
determination of that question must be taken into account (Section 440, CrPC). A
synoptic impression of what the considerations could be may be drawn from the
following provision in the United States Bail Reform Act of 1966:
In determining which conditions of releases will reasonably assure
appearance, the judicial officer shall, on the basis of available information, take
into account the nature and circumstances of the offence charged, the weight of
the evidence against the accused, the accused's family ties, employment,
financial resources, character and mental condition, the length of his residence in
the community, his record of convictions, and his record of appearance at court
proceedings or of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear at court
proceedings (18 US S. 3146(b)).
These are considerations which should be kept in mind when determining the
amount of the security or monetary obligation. Perhaps, if this is done the abuses
attendant on the prevailing system of pre-trial release in India could be avoided or,
in any event, greatly reduced. See : Moti Ram v. State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47."
11. Thus, in view of the provision contained in Section 389(1) of CrPC and in view
of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram
(supra) and Hussainara Khatoon (supra), the Appellate Court in appropriate case is
fully empowered to release the convict on personal bond taking into account the
nature and circumstance of offence charged, evidence available against the convict,
his family background and financial condition etc, to ensure his appearance in Court as
and when required.
12. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of principle of law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the matters of Moti Ram (supra) and Hussainara
Khatoon (supra), it is quite vivid that the appellants being poor persons belonging to
Scheduled Tribe community are in jail since 11.08.2013 and are not in contact with
their family members and, therefore, they are unable to furnish bail bonds as directed
by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2016 while granting bail to them. Accordingly, we
deem it appropriate to direct that the appellants, namely, Bhawan Singh, Jai Singh
and Sukhsen Gond be released on bail forthwith on their executing only personal
bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and shall appear before the Registry
of this Court on 16th August, 2022. They shall thereafter appear before the concerned
trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue to
appear there on all such subsequent dates as are given to them by the said Court,
interval being not less than 6 months, till the disposal of this appeal. It is ordered
accordingly.
13. Accordingly, IA No. 03 is allowed. Order dated 29.04.2016 stands modified to
the extent indicated above.
14. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned jail authorities by fax/e-
mail.
15. While parting with the matter in this regard, the Member Secretary,
Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority and the Secretary, High Court Legal
seeONLINE
The surest cuayto legal research!
18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services Committee are directed to collect information from all the District Legal
Services Authorities about the cases in which accused persons have been enlarged on
bail by this Court but are still in jail due to their inability to furnish bail bonds, as
everyday we are coming across the cases in which despite order of this Court granting
bail to the accused persons, they have not been released from jail and report be
submitted on or before 13.06.2022. This exercise be done within a period of four
weeks and matter be listed for consideration on 15.06.2022.
16. A copy of this order be also sent to the Member Secretary, Chhattisgarh State
Legal Services Authority; Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee and to all
the District Legal Services Committees in the State for information and needful.
HEAD NOTE
The Appellate Court while considering an application filed under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is empowered to suspend the
substantive jail sentence of a convicted person, for the reasons to be recorded in
the order, pending final disposal of the criminal appeal filed by him, and if he is in
confinement, he be released on bail or on his own bond (personal bond).
uRrjt tii<i 389 qu-sR?! Rcwd 74 'JiHi'id
A M^d 94 97 Rxik wcl twj "WRITcRI 4} vft
5171 3rff|fc)f^d SfafTTJ? eqRh 5T7T SnftcT clRd 7?}
“4?b Pleiad 47 SfRST & 3^7 dR 4F $
t nt apfteftq "tiwidii £ trait t 4? 97 4T aw} to 94 97 ate
RdI >J||^ I
1
CRA No. 1239 of 2019, dated 29.03.2022
2
(1978) 4 SCC 47
3
(1980) 1 SCC 81
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.
see
ONLINE
19
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 10689/2017
Ajay Verma v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)
2017 SCC OnLine Del 12743
In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(BEFORE GITA MITTAL, A.C.J. AND C. HARI SHANKAR, J.)
Ajay Verma .…. Petitioner

Petitioner in person with Ms. Sudha Reddy, Adv.
v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi .…. Respondent
Mr. Rahul Mehra, Stg. Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASCGNCTD and Ms.
Mahamaya Chatterjee, Adv.
W.P.(C) 10689/2017
Decided on December 15, 2017
The Order of the Court was delivered by
GITA MITTAL, A.C.J.:— The instant writ petition has been filed by Mr. Ajay Verma,
an advocate, who has extensively contributed to legal aid as counsel for the Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee as well.
2. Mr. Verma's petition brings to the fore an unfortunate aspect of criminal law. It
has been complained by the petitioner that a large number of under-trial prisoners are
languishing in jail despite bail orders having been passed in their favour. This
continued incarceration is stated to be for various reasons including poverty of the
under-trials; financial inability of their relatives to furnish surety bonds or to comply
with other conditions which may have been attached to the bail orders including
conditions in the nature of requirement of local sureties. Mr. Ajay Verma has stated
that imposition of such conditions has been deprecated by the Supreme Court of India
in a plethora of judicial pronouncements wherein the court has unfavourably
commented on the imposition of such conditions, which may be impossible for these
persons to comply with, rendering the order of bail itself nugatory.
3. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has joined Mr.
Ajay Verma, the petitioner, in these submissions.
4. Learned counsels have placed the following binding directives of the Supreme
Court of India passed in a judgment reported at (1978) 4 SCC 47, Moti Ram v. State
of Madhya Pradesh before us. In this judgment, penned by Krishna Iyer, J., the
Supreme Court has adversely commented not only on the unreasonableness of the
monetary amount of the surety bond but also the requirement imposed by the trial
court for a surety from his own district and also considered Chapter XXXIII of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and stated the requirement of law thus:
“24. Primarily Chapter XXXIII is the nidus of the law of bail. Section 436 of the
Code speaks of bail but the proviso makes a contradistinction between ‘bail’ and
‘own bond without sureties’. Even here there is an ambiguity, because even the
proviso comes in only if, as indicated in the substantive part, the accused in a
bailable offence ‘is prepared to give bail’. Here, ‘bail’ suggests ‘with or without
sureties’. And, ‘bail bond’ in Section 436(2) covers own bond. Section 437(2)
blandly speaks of bail but speaks of release on bail of persons below 16 years of
age, sick or infirm people and women. It cannot be that a small boy or sinking
invalid or pardanashin should be refused release and suffer stress and distress in
see
ONLINE
20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prison unless sureties are haled into a far-off court with obligation for frequent
appearance: ‘Bail’ there suggests release, the accent being on undertaking to
appear when directed, not on the production of sureties. But Section 437(2)
distinguishes between bail and bond without sureties.
25. Section 445 suggests, especially read with the marginal note, that deposit of
money will do duty for bond ‘with or without sureties’. Section 441(1) of the Code
may appear to be a stumbling block in the way of the liberal interpretation of bail as
covering own bond with and without sureties. Superficially viewed, it uses the
words ‘bail’ and ‘own bond’ as antithetical, if the reading is literal. 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 ‘bail’ 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, may be released by
the court to further the ends of justice and nothing in Section 441(1) compels a
contrary meaning.
26. Section 441(2) and (3) use the word ‘bail’ generically because the
expression is intended to cover bond with or without sureties.
27. The slippery aspect is dispelled when we understand the import of Section
389(1) which reads:
“389. (1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person the appellate court may,
for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the
sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in
confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond.”
The Court of appeal may release a convict on his own bond without
sureties. Surely, it cannot be that an under-trial 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's 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 absurdem.
28. Likewise, the Supreme Court's powers to enlarge a prisoner, as the wide
words of Order 21 Rule 27 (Supreme Court Rules) show, contain no limitation based
on sureties. Counsel for the State agree that this is so, 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. Such a
strange anomaly could not be, even though it is true that the Supreme Court
exercises wider powers with greater circumspection.
29. The truth, perhaps, is that indecisive and imprecise language is unwittingly
used, not knowing the draftsman's golden rule:
“In drafting it is not enough to gain a degree of precision which a person
reading in good faith can understand, but it is necessary to attain if possible to a
degree of precision which a person reading in bad faith cannot misunderstand.
[ Lux Gentium Lex — Then and Now, 1799-1974, p. 7]”
30. If sureties are obligatory even for Juveniles, females and sickly accused while
they can be dispensed with, after being found guilty, if during trial when the
presence to instruct lawyers is more necessary, an accused must buy release
onlywith 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 we read ‘bail’ to
mean that it popularly does, and lexically and in American Jurisprudence is stated
see
ONLINE
21
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to mean viz. a generic expression used to describe judicial release from custodia
juris. Bearing in mind the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice,
individual freedom and indigents's rights, we hold that bail covers both —
release on one's own bond, with or without sureties. When sureties should
be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on
variables.
xxx xxx xxx
32. It shocks one's conscience to ask a mason like the petitioner to furnish
sureties for Rs. 10,000. The Magistrate must be given the benefit of doubt for not
fully appreciating that our Constitution, enacted by ‘We, the People of India’, is
meant for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker — shall we add, the
bonded labour and pavement dweller.
33. To add insult to injury, the Magistrate has demanded sureties from his
own district! (We assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malayalee,
Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or
criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk? He cannot have
sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one there
and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption
of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies. What law prescribes
sureties from outside or non-regional language applications? What law prescribes
the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the
court district? This tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic,
sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalistic. Article 14 protects all Indians qua
Indians within the territory of India. Article 350 sanctions representation to any
authority, including a court, for 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 any State language according to the law in that State must be accepted
everywhere in the territory of India save where a valid legislation to the contrary
exists. Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfree in Free India, and likewise many other
minorities. This divagation has become necessary to still the judicial beginnings,
and to inhibit the process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is
made of united stuff.”
(Emphasis supplied)
5. After so holding, the Supreme Court directed the release of the petitioner on his
own bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-.
6. In a later judgment reported at (1996) 3 SCC 422, R.D. Upadhyay v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, also a writ petition filed in public interest before the Supreme Court,
the court was concerned with the aspect of speedy trials so far as criminal cases in
Delhi were concerned. In para 2 of the pronouncement, the Delhi High Court was
directed to nominate/designate Additional District Judges to take up exclusively the
trial of 880 murder cases with a direction to complete these trials within a period of six
months. For the purposes of the present consideration, it would be useful to extract
the directions of the Supreme Court made in paras 3 and 4 which read as follows:
“3. So far as the cases regarding attempt to murder are concerned, we direct
that the cases which are pending for more than 2 years, the undertrials shall be
released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the respective trial courts. Persons
facing trial for Kidnapping, Theft, Cheating, Arms Act, Counterfeiting, Customs,
under Section 326 IPC, under Section 324 IPC, Riots and under Section 354 IPC
who are in jail for a period of more than one year, shall be released on bail
forthwith to the satisfaction of the trial courts concerned. There may be cases
where the undertrial persons may not be in a position to furnish sureties etc. In
those cases, the trial courts may consider — keeping in view the facts of each
see
ONLINE
22
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
case especially the period spent in jail — releasing them on bail by furnishing
personal bonds.
4. We make it clear that it shall not be necessary for any of the undertrials
to move application for bail. The court shall, suo motu, on the authority of
this Court's order, consider the bail cases. This shall be done by all the courts
concerned within two weeks of the receipt of this order. We give liberty to all
concerned to approach this Court for further directions, if necessary.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The importance of the rights of prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, who have been accused of even serious crimes, cannot be overlooked under any
circumstance. It is to be noted that the Supreme Court directed that it would “not be
necessary for any of the under-trials to move applications for bail” and that “the trial
court shall, suo motu, on the authority” of the orders passed by the Supreme Court,
consider the bail cases.
8. The issue of under-trial prisoners languishing unnecessarily in jail has engaged
the attention of this court as well. In a judgment reported at ILR (1996) 1 Delhi 274,
Shankara v. State (Delhi Administration), the court had occasion to consider
categorisation of under-trial prisoners in a list submitted by the Inspector General
(Prisons) under orders of the court. The impact of unreasonable bail conditions on a
large group of under-trial prisoners was noted by the court in para 12 of the judgment
in the following terms:
“12. We have two categories of undertrial prisoners—the poor and the non-poor.
The experience has shown that a non-poor undertrial prisoners perhaps do not stay
in a jail even for a few hours after he/she is directed to be released on bail,
irrespective of the conditions attached to the bail orders. Personal bonds of several
lakhs and multiple sureties of several lakhs are furnished within hours of passing of
the release orders whereas there are also very large number of undertrial prisoners
who are compelled to languish in jail for months and years for not even able to
furnish even one surety of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/-. These are clear instances of
depriving the undertrials of their freedom and liberty solely on the ground of
poverty.
xxx xxx xxx
15. Shankar's case was really an eye opener. This Court visualized that because
of the poverty, ignorance and illiteracy in our country, there may be many more
such unfortunate undertrial prisoners who may be languishing in jails despite bail
orders. In this background, this Court thought it appropriate and consequently
directed the Inspector General (Prisons), Delhi to submit a complete list of
all undertrial prisoners lodged in jails of Delhi State who could not be
released on bail despite bail orders having been passed in their favour.”
9. In paras 20 to 22 of the judgment, the court thereafter made the following
directions:
“20 I have heard Mr. R.D. Jolly and Ms. Mukta Gupta, the learned Counsel for the
State. In the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to relaxe and reduce
the conditions attached to the bail orders. The office of the Inspector General
(Prisons) has provided two lists. The undertrial prisoners in Category ‘A’ are
facing trial for relatively minor offences. All the undertrial prisoners in this
category are released on furnishing personal bonds.
21. The Category ‘B’ reflects the cases of those undertrial prisoners who
have been charged with major offences. This Court deems it appropriate
even to vary the terms and conditions of undertrial prisoners in that
category. Therefore, all undertrial prisoners in this category are released on
furnishing a personal bond as well as one surety in the amount of Rs. 1000/-
see
ONLINE
23
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

22. In case even after relaxing and reducing the conditions of bail bond,
still in case any undertrial prisoner is finding it difficult to furnish any
surety, then he will be at liberty to move this court. I also deem it appropriate
to direct the Inspector General (Prisons), to file a comprehensive affidavit within 4
weeks from today indicating the names of those undertrial prisoners who could not
be released despite orders of this court. The affidavit must indicate the reasons for
not securing their release from jails. List this matter for further directions at 2 P.M.
on 3rd July, 1995.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. It would appear that this court had suo motu exercised the power to vary the
terms and conditions attached to the bail order in both minor and major offences.
11. The petitioner, Mr. Ajay Verma, has placed yet another intervention of this court
on 22nd August, 2007 which was registered as Crl. Ref.1/2007 in Court on Its Own
Motion Re: Various Irregularities at Tihar (page 198). This intervention noted the
court's concern about 500 under-trial prisoners who were languishing in jail because
they were not being able to furnish sureties. The order of the court dated 22nd August,
2007 made the following directions:
“We, while appreciating the assistance rendered to us by the Additional Solicitor
General, direct that:—
1. Those under-trials who have been admitted to bail but have been unable
to furnish sureties for more than two months, shall be released on
their furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the trial court.
2. As regards the twenty under-trials, who are reported to be terminally ill
and suffering from what is commonly termed as ‘incurable diseases’,
the Jail Authorities to move the appropriate court which court shall
consider their case for release on bail on humanitarian grounds.
3. In the case of under-trials who are from States other than Delhi, if
admitted to bail, local surety shall not be insisted upon and it shall be
sufficient on verification of the identities and actual places of residence
outside Delhi of the under-trials and their sureties to release them on
personal bonds, or with or without sureties, as the case may be.
4. In case of under-trials who are senior citizens, the courts to take up
their cases on day to day basis as far as possible, if they are found not
fit to be admitted to bail.
5. The cases where the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence
committed is upto seven years, the case of such under-trials shall be
put up by the Jail Authorities before the Visiting Judge every three
months for review of their cases for release on bail.
6. The Jail Authorities shall sensitize and inform all jail inmates of the
provision of ‘plea bargain’ and also the benefits thereof.
7. The Jail Authorities shall also take special care to place these cases
before the Special Court/Judge who, we are informed, visits the jail
every month. This, of course, goes without saying that ‘plea bargain’ should
be encouraged by all courts in the normal course of trials as well.”
(Emphasis by us)
12. Thus, the court has dispensed with the requirement of surety bonds as well as
the requirement of a local surety. Most important is the role of the jail visiting judges.
13. The importance as well as seriousness of the issues flagged by the petitioner
were placed before this court by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) 3465/2010, filed
in public interest. In the decision dated 2nd February, 2011 reported at 2011 SCC
see
ONLINE
24
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OnLine Del 543, D.M. Bhalla v. State, following suggestions made before the court
which were accepted, have been noted in para 4 which reads thus:
“4. However, the purported beneficiary of the bail order is often unable to
enjoy the benefit of the same as he/she is unable to meet the terms set out in
the bail order and/or is also often unaware of the procedure for
relaxation/modification of the bail terms. This inability and some reasons
therefore have been mentioned in the Rotary Club case. Therefore, it was proposed
that:
i. The Jail Paralegal Workers would gather instances and ascertain the
reasons for the inability to meet the bail conditions and furnish it to the
jail authorities and/or to the visiting lawyers of DLSA who, in turn,
would prepare an appropriate application for modification/relaxation of
the bail conditions. In cases where the undertrial-prisoner/convicted-
prisoner have their own private counsel similar/appropriate suggestions would
be offered to them by the visiting lawyers; and if so instructed the latter
would draft and file requisite applications on behalf of such prisoners also;
ii. The bail order would be communicated by the Jail Authorities to the
family of the undertrial-prisoner/convicted prisoner, with the latter's
consent, so that the family could take steps to meet the bail conditions;
iii. To facilitate the release on relaxed bail terms or personal bond or
acceptance of surety of land, the Gram Pradhan's/SDM's certificate that
the prisoner is a permanent resident of the village/subdivision or is the
owner of such and such parcel of land would suffice;
iv. The Bail Granted Register, in which the list of the bails granted by the
court concerned is maintained, would be examined by the judge
concerned to ascertain which undertrial-prisoner/convicted-prisoner
has not been released from jail. Reasons for the same would be
ascertained through video-conferencing and appropriate orders
regarding relaxation/modification of the bail terms would be passed
within ten days;
v. The bail application would be expedited and disposed off as soon as
possible regard being had to the objective of release of the prisoner
expeditiously and reasons for the delay as may be ascertained through
video conferencing with the undertrial-prisoner/convicted-prisoner;
vi. In case of non-disposal of the cases within the above proposed timeframe
the reasons for the same would be incorporated in the “Monthly
Workdone Statement/Report” sent to the Supervising Judge/High Court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. We find that the Law Commission of India in its 268th Report proposed
amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in the provisions relating to bail
practices in Chapter XI. So far as conditions that may be imposed are concerned,
keeping in view the experience in trial courts, the Law Commission of India has made
extensive recommendations in Section C of Chapter XI of the Report.
15. Mr. Ajay Verma has drawn our attention to the suggestions made by the Law
Commission regarding the assessment which is required to be undertaken with regard
to the qualitative value of risk related to a pre-trial defendant and specific
circumstances. In this regard, the following observations of the Law Commission are
being placed before us:
“11.30 Pre-trial risk assessment is the determination of qualitative value of risk
related to a pretrial defendant and his specific circumstances (C. Macmalian C.,
State of The Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment (Pretrial Justice Institute, 2011)).
Risk management means balancing the constitutional rights of the defendant with
see
ONLINE
25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the risk the defendant poses, using effective supervision and strategic interventions
288. In the risk assessment process the arrested accused is brought to the station
where, after identification, booking, search, questioning, and fingerprinting,
community ties are investigated along with a set of pre-determined factors. If the
defendant is found to be a good risk, the officer is authorized to release him with on
a personal bond with or without sureties. Additionally, this procedure saves
substantial police, investigating authorities and Court time and economises the
operation of detention facilities.”
16. It is to be noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted with anguish,
the aspect of under-trial prisoners being lodged in Indian prisons who were unable to
secure their release before trial because of their inability to produce sufficient financial
guarantee for their appearance. In the oft-cited decision reported at (1980) 1 SCC 81,
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna this issue is noted in the
following terms:
“11. While concluding, it seems desirable to draw attention to the absence of an
explicit provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the release, in
appropriate cases, of an undertrial prisoner on his bond without sureties and
without any monetary obligation. There is urgent need for a clear provision.
Undeniably, the thousands of undertrial prisoners lodged in Indian prisons today
include many who are unable to secure their release before trial because of their
inability to produce sufficient financial guarantee for their appearance. Where that is
the only reason for their continued incarceration, there may be ground for
complaining of invidious discrimination. The more so under a constitutional system
which promises social equality and social justice to all of its citizens. The
deprivation of liberty for the reason of financial poverty only is an incongruous
element in a society aspiring to the achievement of these constitutional objectives.
There are sufficient guarantees for appearance in the host of considerations to
which reference has been made earlier and, it seems to me, our law-makers would
take an important step in defence of individual liberty if appropriate provision was
made in the statute for non-financial releases.”
17. A reasoned decision by a ld. Single Judge of the Madras High Court reported at
2017 (3) MLJ (Crl) 134, Sagayam v. State was brought to our notice. This decision was
rendered on a petition filed by the petitioner seeking modification of certain conditions
of bail imposed on the petitioner. The question which was placed for consideration
before the court was as to whether a specific circumstance or condition of surety was
mandatory in filing the surety bond. In this case, the trial court had required the
petitioner to execute a bond of Rs. 15,000/- with two sureties who shall be blood
related, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court. Some of the
objections placed before the court by the petitioner would be arising in the trial courts
in Delhi as well and deserve to be noted and read as follows:
“4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that persons who were
granted bail, anticipatory bail, even statutory default bail are not in a position to
execute the bail bond and the sureties are also not in a position to execute
the surety bonds, because of certain practices being followed by the Courts. The
learned counsel also added that these practices are wide prevalent in the
criminal Courts. These practices did not have the sanction of law.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even for a bail bond or
surety bond for Rs. 5,000/, Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- Courts insists production
of property documents. Because of present property value, it is very difficult to
get property documents for such amount. Sometimes, in lieu of the same, Courts
demand production of RC books of two-wheelers, four-wheelers, etc.
xxx xxx xxx
see
ONLINE
26
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in some cases,
Courts require ‘blood relatives’, ‘family members’, ‘Government servants’,
‘public servants’ ‘permanent employees’, ‘local residents as sureties. The
accused could not get such sureties. Consequently, it leads to many malpractices.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the
accused obtained bail order from the superior Court, yet he could not execute the
bail bond and the surety could not execute the surety bond because of the
onerous requirements insisted upon by the Courts. Those conditions could not
be complied with by the accused. Consequently, the accused are languishing in
jail.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Courts are also
insisting upon production of VAO certificate, sometimes counter signed by
Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar, Residential/Nativity certificate, Solvency
certificate, etc.. It is a matter of common knowledge that getting these
certificates from the Revenue Department involves delay and also certain
untold miseries. Consequently, the accused and sureties could not execute the
bonds.”
(Emphasis by us)
18. Placing reliance on the protection, constitutionally granted under Article 21 of
the Constitution in India, it was urged before the learned Single Judge in the above
case, that a simple procedure not involving complications, complexities, illegalities
ensuring genuineness of bail bonds and surety bonds would be sufficient and that
imposition of such conditions was actually curbing the person's right to be released on
bail; amounts to indirect denial of bail and that the matter involved safeguarding
human rights and rights of the accused. After an elaborate discussion of the provisions
of Sections 397, 439, 482 of the CrPC as well as Sections 440 to 450 of the Cr.P.C.
dealing with furnishing of bail bonds, the observations made by the court on the
fitness of the surety as well as the conditions deserve to be extracted in extenso and
read as follows:
“66. As per section 441(4) of Cr.P.C. a surety should be a fit person. Who is a
fit person has not been defined or explained anywhere in the Code.
Generally, a surety must be a genuine person. He should not be a bogus person. A
surety comes to the Court and gives undertaking to the Court that he will ensure
the appearance of the accused. If the accused fails to appear before the Court, the
surety bond executed by the surety will be forfeited.
67. Court can ascertain the genuineness of the sureties. A surety should
have a genuine address. He may be asked to produce residential proof. He
should not be a vagabond. He should establish his identity. A poor man can
be a voter. Likewise, a poor man can be a surety. A surety can be a person
without having own house. He can be a tenant. Even a person living in a platform,
living in a slum having an acceptable address proof can also stand as a surety.
68. It cannot be denied that a bogus person should not be accepted as a
surety. A person who is offering surety must have acceptable residential proof. He
may be a tenant, licensee. A beggar can also stand as surety provided he should
have some acceptable residential proof.
69. Sometimes, one person may come forward to stand as surety for more
than one accused. For example, if two sons or two brothers stand as sureties to an
accused, his father, brother, mother, sister etc. may come forward to stand as
surety. In such circumstances, question may arise whether the father can chose any
one of his son and stand as surety and exclude his other son.
70. In this connection, Section 441-A Cr.P.C. contains guidance. It runs as
under:
see
ONLINE
27
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Declaration by sureties-Every person standing surety to an accused person

for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the Court as to the
number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving
therein all the relevant particulars.”
[emphasis supplied by me]
71. This court and other Courts while granting bail, directs the accused to
execute bail bond for Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- etc. and
also produce sureties who should also execute a bond for similar amount. In view of
the present value of the properties, it is very difficult to get property document for
such value.
72. When superior Courts grants bail directs the accused to execute bail bond by
himself as well as by the sureties. Unless otherwise stated, in the bail or
anticipatory bail order, as the case may be, ‘bond’ means personal bond. In such
circumstances, the Courts directing the sureties to produce property documents is
beyond the scope of the bail order of the superior court.
73. Court should be satisfied as to the genuineness, identity of the surety
and his residential address. It is equally applies to the accused. For this
purpose, the Court can accept copy of anyone of the following documents
after verification.
1. Passport
2. Ration Card
3. PAN card
4. Driving license
5. Voter's ID
6. Aadhaar Card
7. Photo ID issued by a recognised Educational Institution
8. Photo credit card
9. Kissan Photo Passbook
10. Pensioner's Photo card
11. Freedom fighter photo card
12. Identity Certificate with photo issued by a Gazetted officer or Tahsildar
13. Address card with photo issued by the Postal Department
14. Disability ID card or handicapped medical certificate issued by the
Government
15. NREGS Job Card
16. CGHS/ECHS/State Government/ESIC Medical Card
17. Marriage Certificate issued by the Government 18 Post Office Statement or
Passbook
18. Water Bill
19. Electricity Bill
20. Property Tax Receipt
21. Landline Telephone Bill
22. Credit Card Statement
23. Income-tax assessment order
24. Arms License
25. Certificate of Address issued by the head, Village Panchayat or an equivalent
authority
26. Registered Lease/Sale/Rent Agreement
27. Caste and Domicile Certificate that has photo issued by the State
see
ONLINE
28
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government
28. Gas Connection Bill 30 Insurance Policy
74. From the above analysis, we come to the conclusion that when the accused
executes bail bond, when the surety executes surety bond, Court cannot insist
production of property documents, surety need not be a Government servant or a
blood relative or a local surety.
75. In view of the foregoing analysis, the following directions and orders are
issued:
(i) In para 6(4) of the anticipatory bail order, it is made clear that the word bond
means ‘personal bond’.
(ii) The word ‘blood surety’ shall be deleted.
(iii) Within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner
shall execute the bail bond as per the terms and conditions of this Court order
in Crl.O.P. No. 2891 of 2017, dated 21.2.2017 and as per the directions of this
order.
(iv) The amount of bail bond, surety bond shall not be excessive and it should be
reasonable.
(v) It is made clear that production of property documents or V.A.O. Certificate,
Tahsildar Certificate, Solvency Certificate, R.C. book shall not be insisted upon
from the accused or from the sureties.
(vi) Copies of anyone of the documents mentioned in para 73 in this order can be
accepted.
(vii) Sureties need not be a Government servant or a public servant or a
permanent employee or related by blood to the accused or a member of the
family but he should be a genuine person.
(viii) One person can be a surety for more than one accused.
(ix) In the first instance, cash surety cannot be insisted upon.
(x) When the accused is not in a position to produce personal surety and offers
cash surety, it can be accepted.”
(Emphasis supplied)
19. So far as the conditions made in Sagayam, amongst others, in para 75, the
learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, inter alia, clarified as follows:
“75. In view of the foregoing analysis, the following directions and orders are
issued:
xxx xxx xxx
(vii) Sureties need not be a Government servant or a public servant or a
permanent employee or related by blood to the accused or a member of the
family but he should be a genuine person.
(viii) One person can be a surety for more than one accused.
(ix) In the first instance, cash surety cannot be insisted upon.
(x) When the accused is not in a position to produce personal surety and
offers cash surety, it can be accepted.”
20. We see no reason why these very observations would not apply to under-trials
in the courts in Delhi as well.
21. The above narration would show that so far as the jails and prisoners in Delhi
are concerned, there is a procedure and practice prescribed for jail visiting judges who
regularly visit the jails. The under-trail review committees are also in place in all the
districts in Delhi which are required to regularly review all cases of prisoners who
would be covered under Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. and submit their report. The
recommendations of these under-trial review committees are placed before the trial
see
ONLINE
29
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
courts for consideration.

22. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the Government of
NCT of Delhi has placed a district-wise list of under-trials who have not been released
on bail despite orders of bail passed in their favour.
23. It is truly unfortunate that despite an elaborate system including jail visits by
Judges; legal aid lawyers of DSLSA and DHCLSC as well as para legal volunteers
interacting with prisoners and jail authorities as also extensive guidelines on the issue
of bail conditions, not much has changed. The present intervention is still called for.
Clearly, the directions of the Supreme court and this court are not being complied
with.
24. We are extremely pained to note that despite the clear law having been laid on
the subject, not only the authoritative directions of the Supreme Court of India as well
as the repeated judicial pronouncements of this court and the clear statutory
provisions, 253 prisoners are still languishing in jail which has necessitated recording
of the present order reiterating the well settled principles.
25. Inasmuch as we are concerned with inability of an under-trial prisoner to
comply with the conditions of the bail, we see no reason as to why the trial courts do
not suo motu examine the cases of such persons and to conduct an inquiry into the
reasons thereof. The trial courts should be not only sensitive but extremely vigilant in
cases where they are recording orders of bail to ascertain the compliance thereof. In
case of inability of a prisoner to seek release despite an order of bail, in our view it is
the judicial duty of all trial courts to undertake a review for the reasons thereof. We
specifically direct that every bail order shall be marked on the file. It shall be the
responsibility of every judge issuing an order of bail to monitor its execution and
enforcement. In case a judge stands transferred before the execution, it shall be the
responsibility of the successor judge to ensure execution. This shall be reported in the
Statements sent by the judges.
26. It stands authoritatively settled that the trial court is required to conduct a risk
assessment. Several suggestions regarding factors which would go into the making of
such an assessment have been pointed out in the judicial precedents as well as by the
Law Commission of India in its 268th report. After undertaking the risk assessment,
the trial court is judicially bound to examine modification of the conditions of bail. The
judicial discretion in this regard has to be exercised on sound principles clearly spelt
out in the series of judicial precedents.
27. In the context of the present consideration, it is also apposite to note that as
recently as on the 12th of December, 2017 in W.P.(Crl) 1352/2015 Court on its own
motion v. State while considering the aspect of working of Section 436A of the CrPC,
this bench has issued guidelines in the best interests of prisoners in the following
terms:
“8. On a consideration of the suggestions received from the Committee and the
guidelines suggested, the following immediate guidelines are issued notifying steps
that are required to be taken by trial courts, jail authorities and District Legal
Services Authorities in the best interests of the prisoners:
Guidelines:
(i) Updation of custody warrants by trial courts:
While preparing the custody warrants of an Under Trial Prisoner (UTP), the
courts should ensure that in addition to the details/information already
mentioned in the custody warrant, it should also contain the following
details/information:
(a) At the time of the first remand, the section(s)/offence(s) under which the
UTP is being sent to judicial custody.
see
ONLINE
30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Any change(s) in the section(s)/offence(s) during the course of

investigation.
(c) Section(s)/offence(s) under which the final report (charge-sheet) has been
filed.
(d) Section(s)/offence(s) of which the Court is taking cognizance.
(e) On the date cognizance is taken, the Court shall indicate the date on which
the right under Section 436A Cr.P.C. will accrue for the UTP. [While
mentioning this date, in case of multiple offences, the Court should also
separately write the date on which half of the maximum sentence of graver
offence will expire and the date on which half of maximum sentence of
lesser offence will expire].
(f) Section(s)/offence(s) under which the UTP has been charged by the Court.
(g) If on a later date there is an amendment in the charge, then the same
should be updated in the custody warrant.
(h) The date on which the UTP is granted bail by the Trial Court or the
Superior Court. The said order should be conveyed on each date of hearing
when the UTP is produced for remand.
(i) The aforementioned details/information will have to updated at following
stages of a case, i.e. from the stage of first remand to filing of chargesheet
to taking of cognizance to framing of charge. The Court must ensure that
the custody warrant is updated/modified in the manner stated above.
(ii) Role of jail authorities:
In addition to the duty cast on the Courts to maintain and update the
Custody Warrants of UTPs, the Jail Authorities will also have to play an active
role in the effective implementation of the aforesaid suggestions.
(a) The Jail Authorities will have to constantly update their records and in line
with any change in the details mentioned in the Custody Warrant of a UTP.
(b) The Jail Authorities should also inform the UTP and the concerned Court
when the UTP becomes entitled to receive benefit of Section 436A Cr.P.C.
(c) The Jail Authorities must inform the UTP of any change in the section(s)
he/she is charged with by the Court.
(iii) Role of District State Legal Services Authority:
(a) Legal Literacy Camps should be organized by DSLSA regularly in jails to
make the UTPs aware about their rights under Section 436A Cr.P.C. and
they should also apprised about the period by which half of the sentence for
the common offences is going to be completed.
(b) The remand advocates/Legal Aid Counsels appointed in the Criminal
Courts by the concerned DLSA may be asked to give a monthly report in
respect of the UTPs for whom an application under Section 436A Cr.P.C.
may be moved. The remand advocate/appointed legal aid counsel may be
directed to move these applications promptly in the concerned court.
(c) The legal aid counsels may be instructed that in those cases which are
dealt with by them, they should themselves remain alert as to when a
person becomes eligible for the benefit under Section 436A Cr.P.C. and
take appropriate steps.”
28. In view of the above, we direct as follows:
(i) The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the list submitted by Mr. Rahul
Mehra, ld. Standing Counsel to the District Judges concerned as well as copy of
this order to all the District Judges who shall ensure that the cases detailed in
the list are immediately brought to the notice of the trial courts concerned.
(ii) The District Judges shall also undertake an exercise of verification of the list
see
ONLINE
31
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
submitted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi before us and also to undertake a review
of the pending cases to ascertain as to whether there is any other under-trial
prisoner who has been unable to secure release from prison despite an order of
bail in his/her favour.
(iii) The trial courts shall undertake the exercise of risk assessment with regard to
the persons enumerated in the list forwarded to the trial courts i.e. the District
Judges who shall submit a report to this court of the outcome of such
consideration by the trial courts within four weeks from today.
(iv) Copy of this order shall also be sent to the Directorate of Prosecution, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi to ensure that a copy of this order is brought to the notice of all
prosecutors and a sensitisation programme on the subject is undertaken.
(v) Copy of this order be also sent to the Director General of Prisons, Central Jail,
Tihar.
(vi) We direct the prison authorities to promptly bring in to the notice of the trial
court as well as the concerned Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority
about any incidence of a prisoner being unable to secure release from prison
despite an order of bail.
(vii) The Director General of Prisons may consider the possibility of incorporating
software which would raise a notification or an alarm in cases where under-trial
prisoners in whose cases bail orders have been passed, are still lodged in
custody, to enable action thereon.
(viii) Copy of this order shall also be brought to the notice of every judge in the
District Courts in Delhi, irrespective of whether they exercise civil or criminal
jurisdictions.
(ix) Copy of this order be also sent to the Member Secretary of the Delhi State Legal
Services Authority as well as the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee to ensure sensitisation of all the legal aid lawyers on the aspect noted
by us.
(x) Copy of this order shall also be made available to the Delhi Judicial Academy to
ensure that a proper sensitisation programme of the District Judiciary on the
subject is undertaken.
29. List this matter on 31st January, 2018.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.
® SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, April 08, 2024 32
ONLINE^ SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
True Print this judgment is protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
422 SUPREME COURT CASES (1996) 3 SCC

12. Under these circumstances, we hold that the order passed by the . ’ft
High Court is not correct in law in giving direction not to declare the result . ft
of the election or to conduct fresh poll for 20 persons, though the writ a
petition is maintainable. The High Court, pending writ petition, would not be
justified in issuing direction to stall the election process. It is made clear that 'ft . J*
though we have held that the respondents are not entitled to the relief by -
interim order, this order does not preclude any candidate including defeated
candidate from canvassing the correctness of the election. They are free, a^
held earlier, to seek remedy by way of an election petition as provided in the b
Act and the Rules.
13. The appeals are allowed accordingly, but, in the circumstances,
without costs.
(1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 422ft ft c

(Before Kuldip Singh and Faizan Uddin. JJ.)
R D. UPADHYAY W” Petitioner;
Versus % ft
STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS Respondents.
&
% ••
Writ Petition (C) No. 559 of 1994, decided on March 19, 1996 ft. Jr
Constitution of India —
Arts. 21 & 32 — Right to speedy trial —
Undertrials languishing in Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi for a period ranging from 1
year to 11 years —
Murder cases directed to be disposed of within ^months or
so by nominating/designating ten Additional District Judges
against whom cases of attempt to: murder pending for more than 2 years
Undertrials —
directed to be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of trial court
Undertrials charged with offences -tinder Customs Act, Arms Act or under
e —
Ss. 326, 324, 354 IPC or of kidnapping, theft, cheating, counterfeiting, who are
in jail for more than one year directed to be released bn bail forthwith to the
satisfaction of trial court —
Trial courts may consider the cases of undertrials
who are unable to furnish sureties to release on bail by furnishing personal
bonds —
NCT, Delhi Administration may take appropriate decision in respect
of undertrials accused of the offences under NDPS,Or for rape, dacoity and f
robbery, escape, dowry and those under Sections 304 IPC, TADA, Official
Secrets Act, and Extradition Act
Case Findepftft,;,
speedy near trjal *
Search again: ft '
ftft, ft j-!
ft ;■ A undertrial* g
R M/16076/CR
ft Order
$ 1. Tfeis public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by Mr R.D. Upadhyay, an Advocate of this Court. It has
been highlighted in the petition that a large number of undertrial prisoners /7
have been languishing in Tihar Jail without trial for a very long period. This
|ON LIN SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R D. UPADHYAY v STATE OF A.P. 423

Court by the order dated 7-11-1994 directed the Superintendent Tihar Jail to
file an affidavit giving a list of undertrial inmates of the jail who are
a confined for over a period of one year. Shri Tarsem Kumar, Superintendent,-
Central Jail, Tihar has filed an affidavit dated 9-2-1996 and has annexed a
list giving jailwise break-up of undertrials who have spent more than one
year at Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi as on 25-1-1996. The list indicates that
there are undertrial prisoners who are in jail for a period ranging from one
year to 11 years. Mr Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the NCT,
b Delhi has categorised the list of undertrials offencewise. The total cases
categorised by Mr Srivastava have come to 1930. The list is as under: -
S. No. Name of Offence Total Cases ,6 '
1. Murder 880
2. Attempt to Murder
c 3. N.D.P.S. V 264
4. Rape 137
5. Kidnapping f W68
6. Dacoity and Robbery / v; 188
7. TADA 122
d 8. Dowry and Section 304 IPC 74
9. Theft W 55
10. Cheating F 10%
11. Arms Act W V
12. Counterfeiting % %
e 13. Official Secrets Act
14. Customs J; "V ^11
15.
16.
Escape
Under Section 326 IPC
V I 2
17. ‘’ Under Section 324 IPC 1
f 18. RiOtS
-IM**. -..ft. /Ji.- -M’.
f 3
AX , YA w?.-1-’
19. J A Extradition Act f 1
20. Under Section 354 IPC 1
Total Cases 1930
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel
g agree that a speedy trial is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.SdTar as 880 murder cases are concerned, we
request the Delhi High Court to nominate/designate ten Additional District
4 Judges to take up exclusively. the trial of these cases. The High Court may
consider directing the Additional District Judges, as nominated, to dispose of
these cases within a period of six months or so.
ri 3; So far as the cases regarding attempt to murder are concerned, we
direct that the cases which are pending for more than 2 years, the undertrials
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shall be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the respective trial
courts. Persons facing trial for Kidnapping, Theft, Cheating, Arms Act,
Counterfeiting, Customs, under Section 326 IPC, under Section 324 IPC, a
Riots and under Section 354 IPC who are in jail for a period of more than ,
one year, shall be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the trial >
courts concerned. There may be cases where the undertrial persons may .not
be in a position to furnish sureties etc. In those cases, the trial courts- may
consider
spent in jail
——
keeping in view the facts of each case especially the periods
releasing them on bail by furnishing personal bonds. b
4. We make it clear that it shall not be necessary for any of the
undertrials to move application for bail. The court shall, suo mptu, on the
authority of this Court’s order, consider the bail cases. This shall be done by
all the courts concerned within two weeks of the receipt of this order. We
give liberty to all concerned to approach this Court for further directions, if
necessary. ’’Sy- t c
5. A copy of this order be sent to the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi by
tomorrow. He shall issue the necessary directions in this respect to all the
courts functioning under his jurisdiction. A copy of this order be also sent to
the Superintendent, Tihar Jail with a direction that he shall bring this order to
the notice of all the undertrials concerned. S J*
6. So far as the undertrials accused of the offences under NDPS, Rape,
Dacoity and Robbery, TADA, Dowry and under Section 304 IPC, Official
Secrets Act, Escape and Extradition Act are concerned, the NCT -**- Delhi
Administration may consider and take appropriate decision in this respect.
We are informed by Mr N.N. Goswami that the matter is already under
consideration of the NCT, Delhi Administration. Hi
1. Copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Justice Delhi High Court
for his kind consideration. 'v* A S ’’
(1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 424

Before J.S. Verma, SB Bharucha and K; Venkataswami, JJ .) f
GOPALAN KRISHNANKUTTY / Appellant;
Versus 5' $ '
KUNJAMMA PILLAI SAROJINI AMMA

AND OTHERS . . . Respondents. I
Civil Appeal No. 4192 of 1994^ decided on March 13, 1996 g
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Ss. 111(d), (e), (f), 91, 62 and 60 —
Determination of lease —
Merger and surrender Usufructuary mortgage of
the leased premises created by lessor in favour of lessee — On redemption of the
—
mortgage, held, automatic merger of the interest of lessee with that of
mortgagee and surrender of the lease cannot be inferred so as to entitle the
/1
f From the Judgment and Order dated 30-9-1986 of the Kerala High Court in A S No 100 of
1981
[ONLINE^ SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
TruePrint™ source: ILR (Delhi), © 2024 Delhi High Court.
True Print -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
274
A CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
SHANKARA & OTHERS . . PETITIONERS J’
VERSUS |'
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) .. RESPONDENTS
B (Dalveer Bhandari, J)
Crl. M(M) 2287/94 Date of decision : 1-6-95
1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA—Article, 21—large
number of undertrial prisoners not released on bail
order because unable to fulfil conditions attached to
C
—
bail due to poverty and ignorance-—interests of
justice and also state itself conditions must be
—
relaxed in cases of minor offences personal bonds
sufficient for release.
D The petitioner had sent this petition from jail stating that he
had been charged with theft and that he hadremained in judicial
custody for about two years despite getting bail from the court.
Because of his extremely poor financial condition, he could not
fulfil conditions attached to the bail order—Court relaxed the
E conditions in petitioner’s bail order and petitioner was released on
—
personal bond. Court also directed I.G. Prisons to produce figures
regarding number of undertrial ^prisoners who had not been
released because of non-fulfilment of conditions attached to bail
order. Court ascertained through court commissioners facts related
F to various prisones and ordered relaxation of bail conditions. The
court further directed l.G. Prisons to submit; a;, comprehensive
report of all prisoners who. could not be released despite court
orders.
_ HELD: 'V , flK
1. In such cases of undertrial prisoners, who could not be
released despite bail orders, the State must adopt a more pragmatic
and reasonable approach, not only in the interest of the under¬
trial prison ersbutalso in the interest of the State and all
H concerned. . / : :
(Para 6)
2. .Another factor which ;must be taken into consideration is
the huge public expense involved in keeping prisoners in custody.
Our jails are already over-crowded. The fact that hundreds of
I these undertrials who have been released on bail have also not
been enlaiged, places" heavier burden on the available infra¬
structural facilities leading to the most deplorable and inhuman
conditions in jails.
.. 5 (Paras 8-9)
4^
[ONLINE^ TruePrint™ source: ILR (Delhi), © 2024 Delhi High Court.
True Print -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shankara & ors. Vs. State 275

A 3. The State must take into consideration all factors and in
such cases must move the courts for relaxing conditions attached.;
to the bail orders and in appropriate cases should even request
the courts to release the undertrial prisoners on their executing *
persona] bonds. If the State undertakes this exercise promptly
B large number of problems faced by all concerned would be solved
to a large extent 4 J
(Para 1 1)
4. There are very large number of undertrial prisoners who are
C compelled to languish in jail for months and years for not even
able to furnish even one surety of Rs. 500 to Rs. 100$ These
are clear instances of depriving the undertrials tbfvtheir freedom
and liberty solely on the ground of poverty.
... M I (Para 12)
For the Petitioners —Undertrial prisoners.
Gupta, for State. %
—
For the Respondents Mr. R. D, Jolly with Ms.'Mukta
v , V;
$
E
CASES REFERRED TO :
\ '
1. Hussainara Khatoon’s case AIR 1979 SLC. 1360.

2. Babu Sineh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1978 SC 524.
F %
3. State of Rajasthan ? Vs. Balchand . AIR 1977 S.C.
2447. $
c DALVEER BltANDARI, J. 1. In. our country, a large num¬

ber of poormen, distressed women and? unfortunate children are
—
lodged behind prison bars awaiting trials in the courts of law
for months and years. § ./
H 2- Most bf the undertrial£' prisoners according to I. G.
Prison’s list-A are presently -lodged in Tihar Jails have been
charged with? minor offences. * which even if proved would not
warrant punishment for more than a few months, perhaps for
a year qi two and vet. thêt-. unfortunate forgotten specimen
j of humanity are in jail&jaeprived of their liberty, for years
without even as much as their trial having commenced. It
is a crying shame on the judicial system which permits incarcera-
tioriSof men and women for such long periods of time without
tria^' as aptly observed by the Hon’ble Supreme
"■ Hussainara Khatoon’s case,
Court in
AIR 1979 S.C. 1360.(1).
sy ‘ 3
A?
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. 37
IONLINE TruePrint™ source: ILR (Delhi), © 2024 Delhi High Court.
True Print -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
276 Indian Law Reports (Delhi) ILR (1996) I Delhi

A 3. The instant case is even more shocking and revolting V..
to the conscience. It is clearly a slur on our administration of
justice. Even out of those unfortunate poor men, and women
who have been languishing in jail for years, some of them were
ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of their ''
B trial by various courts on certain conditions. These undertrial
prisoners could not be released despite release orders not only
for days, or months but for years for not fulfilling the conditions
which were attached to the bail orders, because of their
extreme poverty and ignorance. In most cases, no one on their
c behalf has even bothered to move the courts relaxing,
reducing or waiving the conditions attached to the bail orders.
^for
As it is aptly said that the poor perhaps have no friends or
relations. Consequently, they are languishing in jails for
months and years.
D 4. In Hussainara Khatoon’s case (supra), the Supreme
Court observed that our legal and judicial system continually
denies justice to the poor by keeping them for long years in
pretrial detention, is a highly Unsatisfactory bail system. It
suffers from a property oriented approach which seems to
E proceed on the erroneous assumption that risk Zof monetary
loss is only deterrent against fleeing from justice.
5. The Court also mentioned in the said case that the poor
find our legal and judicial system oppressive and heavily weigh¬
ed against them and a feeling of frustration and despair occurs
F upon them as they find that they are helplessly in a position of
inequality with the non-poor. The court also observed that the
bail system, as it operates today, £is a source of great hardship
to the poor and if we really want to eliminate the evil effects
of poverty and assure a fair and just v treatment to the poor
G in the administration of justice, it is imperative that the bail
system should be thoroughly reformed’- so that it should be
possible for the poor, as easily as the rich, to obtain pretrial
release without jeopardizing the interest of justice.
6. In such cases of undertrial prisoners, who could not be
released despite bail orders, the State must adopt a more prag¬
matic and Reasonable approach, not only in the interest of
the undertrial prisoners but also in the interest of the State and
all concerned. >
I ' As indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court
in Babu Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1978 SC 524(2) that a
man on bail has a better chance to prepare and present his case
than one remanded to custody. The apex court also observed
that if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention
X’ should be demoted.
f
J
IONLIN TruePrint™ source: ILR (Delhi), © 2024 Delhi High Court.
True Print -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shankara & ors. Kv. State 277
A 8. Another factor which must be taken into consideration

the huge public expense involved in keeping these under¬
trial prisoners in custody. $ .
9. Our jails are already over-crowded. The fact that hun-
dreds of these undertrials who have been released on bail have
B
also not been enlarged, places heavier burden on the available
infrastructural facilities leading to the most deplorable and
inhuman conditions in jails. JT
10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the State
C of Rajasthan vs. Balchand AIR 1977 S.C. 244^^) had ob¬
served that 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, qf justice or creat¬
ing other troubles in the shape of repeating/ offences or inti-
P initiating witnesses. The experience reveals that the extremely
poor undertrial prisoners like these petitioners are not likely
to abuse the discretion of the court in enlarging them on bail.
11. The State must take into consideration all these factors
and in such cases must move the courts for relaxing conditions
E attached to the bail orders and ,in appropriate cases should
even request the courts to release the undertrial prisoners on
their executing personal bbnds.| If the State undertakes this
exercise promptly, large number of problems faced by all con¬
cerned would be solved to a large extent.
F 12. We have two categories of undertrial prisoners the
poor and the non-poor.' The experience has shown that a non¬ —
poor undeitrial prisoners perhaps do not stay in a jail even for
a few hours after helshe is directed; to be released on bail, irres¬
pective of the conditions attached to the bail orders. Personal
G bonds of several lakhs and multiple ’' sureties of several lakhs are
furnished within hours of passing of the release orders where¬
as there are also,/very large number, of undertrial prisoners who
are compelled to languish in jait^for months and years for
not even able to furnish even % one surety of Rs. 500 to
H Rs. 1000, These are clear instance of depriving the undertrials
of their freedom and liberty solely on the ground of poverty.
13. One such indigent and distressed prisoner Shankar who
was charged with a minor offence of theft approached this court
by sending a petition through jail. In that petition, he had
I mentioned and the same is set out as under : —
“Applicant is at very poor person, he has ailing wife
with minor children. He is the only earning mem-
ber in his family and his family is on the verge of
% starvation due to his long detention in jail. He has
..w
| O N LI N E SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
True Print -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
278 Indian Law Reports (Delhi) ILR (1996) 1 Delhi

A been in judicial custody since 10-6-1992 because
of non-availability of two sureties, he is still languish-^;
ing in jail.”
14. When the case of Shankar came to the notice of thisA
Court, the court of course issued notice to the State counsel
B and thereafter reduced and relaxed the conditions attached to
the bail order and consequently Shankar was released.' \
15. Shankar’s case was really an eye opener. This Court
visualized that because of the poverty, ignorance and, illiteracy
in our country, there may be many morei'^ unfortunate
undertrial prisoners who may be languishing in jails despite bail
orders. In this background, this court thought it appropriate ‘
and consequently directed the Inspector General (Prisons),

Delhi to submit a complete list of all undertrial prisoners lodged
in jails of Delhi State who could not be released on bail despite
D bail orders having been passed in their, favour.
16. In pursuance of the directions , of this Court, the then
Inspector General (Prisons) Mjs. Kjran Bedi filed a detailed
and comprehensive affidavit and submitted that 368 prisoners
as on 11-11-1994 are languishing in jail despite release orders
® of bail in their favour because^ they could not fulfil the condi¬
tions attached to the bail orderSv?^ Thereafter, ‘-.tliis court ap¬
pointed several practising lawyers of this court as court com¬
missioners to scrutinise the cases of such undertrial prisoners and
collect more information regarding their 'family background,
F their roots in the community and financial background. The
Court Commissioners after visiting jails submitted applications
of their release. After verifications, the Court released about
107 undertrial prisoners. ’
17 Ttjereafter,^the Inspector General (Prisons) was asked

G to up-date the list and submit tlid ffist df the undertrial prisoners
who are' presently, lodged in various', jails of Tihar.
18. The Inspector General of Prisons has submitted two
lists covering all undertrial /prisoners as on 1st June, 1995
H who could not be released despite bail orders. A large number
jOf- undertrial prisoners have already been released and all other
f remaining 155 such undertrial prisoners are being released by
& separate 155 bail orders today.
It may be pettiperit to observe that despite various general
I directions by their ^-"Lordships of the Supreme Court, the ad¬
ministration had neither comprehended the directions in its
correct perspective, nor had made efforts to implement them,
.ft Otherwise, it "would not have been necessary for this court to
pass these orders. Therefore, in the matter of these under¬
trial prisoners, this court in the larger interest of justice, deems
,®
IONLIN TruePrint™ source: ILR (Delhi), © 2024 Delhi High Court.
True Print -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shankara & ors. Vs. State 279
A it appropriate to depart from the practice of only giving general

directions but would like to pass fresh bail orders in all such
cases after relaxing the conditions attached to the bail orders
so that hundreds of these languishing undertrial prisoners can
be released forthwith who despite the bail orders they could
B not be released. '•
20. I have heard Mr. R. D. Jolly and M:S. Mukta Cmpta.^
the learned counsel for the State. Ln the interest of justice,
I deem it appropriate to relax and reduce the conditions' attach¬
ed to the bail orders. The office of the Inspector General
C (Prisons) has provided two lists. The undertrial prisoners in
category ‘A’ are facing trial for relatively minor offences. All
the undertrial prisoners in this category are released on lumish-
ing personal bonds. W*
P
21. The category ‘B’ reflects the cases - of ' those undertrial
prisoners who have been charged with major dffences. This
court deems it appropriate even to vary the terms and conditions
of undertrial prisoners in that category. Therefore, all under¬
trial prisoners in this category are released on furnishing a per-
sonal bond as well as one surety in the. amount of Rs. 1000 to
the satisfaction of the concerned Court. * J
22. In case even after relaxing and reducing the conditions
of bail bond, still in case any undertrial prisoner finding
it difficult to furnish any surety; . then he will be af liberty to
F move this court. I also deem it appropriate to direct the Inspec¬
tor General (Prisons), to. file a comprehensive affidavit within
4 weeks from today indicating the names of those undertrial
prisoners who could not be ( released despite orders of this
court. The affidavit must indicate the reasons for not securing
q their release from jails. List this matter.Tor .further directions
at 2 P.M. on 3rd July, 1995.
23. I have carefully considered all facts and circumstances,
in order to eliminate or in any event minimise the possibility in
future of such undertrial prisoners languishing in jail despite bail
H orders. I deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to direct
the office of the Inspector General (Prisons) to submit a report in
all cases to the concerned courts for obtaining appropriate direc¬
tions, where undertrial prisoners have not been released despite
release orders after four weeks from the date of the bail orders.
I
*24. M
A comprehensive list of the undertrial prisoners reveals
that there are large number of undertrial prisoners facing trial in
the MDPS cases. Since 10 Additional Sessions Judges are now
dealing with the NDPS Cases in Delhi, therefore, I deem it appro¬
priate to direct that the cases of undertrial prisoners who have
| O N LI N E SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
True Print -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
280 Indian Law Reports (Delhi) ILR (1996) 1 Delhi

A already remained in jail for more then 5 years shall be taken on « .
day to day basis. The learned Addtional Sessions Judges dealing
with the NDPS cases are further directed to hear arguments and V
proceed to pronounce judgments as expeditiously as possible. The
learned Additional Sessions Judges need not wait for directions U
B in individual cases. 5
.
25. I would like to place on record this court s deep sense of
appreciation to Mr. R. D. Jolly and the Inspector General of
Prisons and his colleagues for providing valuably assistance to
this court in this case. s
ATG s
Appropriate Directions Issued

®
[ONLINE^ TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTI RAM V. STATE OF M. P. 47
(1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 47

(Before V. R. Krishna Iyer and D. A. Desai JJ.) § %,
MOTI RAM AND OTHERS .. Appellant? £%
Versus 'X
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .. Respondent;
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1649 of 1978f, decided on '
August 24, 1978
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 389, 436, 437, 441 and —
445 — Bail law — Practice and procedure Bail includes with or —
without sureties —
Amount of bond court should insist u pon
priety of demanding large sums from those of ordinary means
Pro¬
—
Propriety of insisting that surety be from the same district
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 Order 21, Rule 27
Supreme Court to release on bail without sureties
—
Power of —
Interpretation of Statutes —
Statutes dealing with social justice
and liberty should be interpreted liberally f
The petitioner, who was a mason, obtained an order for bail pending
his appeal to the Supreme Court “to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate”. The Supreme Court did not spell out the details of. the bail
and the Magistrate ordered that a surety in a sum of Rs. 10,000 should be
produced. Further, the Magistrate refused tdaccept the, sutety'W' the
petitioner's brother because the brother and his assets were in another dis¬
trict. Thereupon, the appellant moved the Supreme Court) again for
modifying the original order to the extent that the petitioner be released on
furnishing surety to the tune of Rs. 2,000 or on executing a personal bond
or pass any other order or direction a$ the Court may deem fit and proper.
Directing the Magistrate to; •release the petitioner oi^ his own bond in
the sum of Rs. 1,000, the Supreme:Court v;
Held : f
There is no definition of bail in the Code) of Criminal Procedure,
although offences are classified as bailable and non-bailablc. Law, at the
service of life, must respond interpretative!^ realities and make for
liberties. r^X (Paras 6 and 23)
(1) The Court, under the Code of:Criminal Procedure, can enlarge on
his own bond without sureties, a person undergoing incarceration for a non-
bailable offence either as under -trial or as convict who has appealed or
sought special leave. (Para 3)
(a) Section 436 of the Code; speaks of bail but the proviso makes a
contradistinction between bail and own “bond without sureties”. Even
here there is an ambiguity, because, the proviso comes in only if, as indicated
in the substantive part, the accused, in the case of a bailable offence, pre¬
pared to give bail. The word ‘bail’ suggests “with or without sureties”,
and bail bond in Section 436(2), covers own bond. Section 437(2) speaks
df bailout speaks of release on bail of persons below 16 years of age, sick
f Criminal Muc. Petition No. 1649 of 1978 (Application for Bail) in the matter of
Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1978.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or infirm people and women. Section 445, read with marginal note, suggests
that deposit of money will do duty for bond “with or without sureties”. Sec- <, S
tion 441(1) of the Code appears as a stumbling block in the way of liberal % W ,
interpretation of bail as covering own bond with and without sureties. * But
incisively understood, the section 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 ‘bail’ 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 may be released by the court to further the ends of justice
and nothing in Section 441(1) compels a contrary meaning. (Paras 24 and 25)
(A) Section 441(2) and (3) use the word ‘bail’ generically, because, the
expression is intended to cover bond with or without sureties. Section 389(1)
provides that pending any appeal by the convicted person, the Appellate
Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in Writing, order that the
execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also,
if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail; or op his own bond,
i.e. the Court of Appeal may release a convict on his own bond without
sureties. It cannot be that an under-trial iS;' wqjs® off than a convict or
that the power of the court to release increases when the guilt is established.
If sureties are obligatory even for juveniles, females and sickly accused,
while they can be dispensed with, after being found guilty ; and if during
the trial, when the presence to instruct lawyers is more necessary , an accused
must buy release only with sureties while at the appellate level/ suretyship
is expendable, there is an unreasonable restriction on personal liberty with
discrimination writ on the provisions. Moreover, the power of the Supreme
Court to enlarge a person during the pendency of the Special; Leave Petition
or of an appeal is very wide under Order 21, Rule 27. And these guidelines,
which prevail with the Supreme Court when granting suspension of sentence
must, in a broad sense, have Relevance to what the Code indicates except
where special circumstances call for a different course. Bearing in mind,
the need for liberal interpretation in areas sof social justice, individual
freedom and indigene’s rights, it must be held that bail covers both release
on one’s own bond with Or without surety. (Paras 21, 26, 27, and 30)
Legal Literature, Indian and Anglo-American, or BMl Jurisprudence,
referred to.
(2) When sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted
upon arc dependent on variables. It shocks one’s conscience to ask a mason
to furnish sureties for Rs. 10,000. g (Paras 30, 32)
(3) The law does not proscribe sureties from outside. The law does
not prescribe geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from
the Courtl district. Article 14 ©if -the Constitution protects all Indians qua
Indians within the territory of India. (Para 33)
It is for Parliament to consider whether in our socialist republic, with
.social Justice as its hallmark, monetary superstition, and not other relevant
(considerations like family ties, roots in the community, membership of stable
organisations should prevail for bail bonds to ensure that the bailee does
riot fled justice. (Para 35)
f
| VPS/3970/CR
A
t
this judgment is protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon RAM v. STATE of m. p. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
Advocates who appeared in this case :

S. S. Khanduja, Advocate, for the Appellant: M
I. N. Shroff, S. K. Gambhir, Advocates, for the Respondent : •, , '$s®
V. M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate and K. T. Harinder Nath, Senior Advocate’S
(R. K. Jain, H. K. Puri, Advocates, with them) Intervener.
The Order of the Court was delivered by :
—
Krishna Iyer, J. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich
as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread/’ lampooned Anatole France. The reality of this caricature of equal
justice under the law, whereby the poor are priced out lii>Crty in oi^îeir
the justice market, is the grievance of the petitioner. His criminal appeal
pends in this Court and he has obtained an order for bail in hisfavour “to
the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate”;? The direction of this
Court did not spell out the details of the bail, and magistrate ordered
that a surety in a sum of Rs. 10,000 be produced which, iff actual impact,
soothe
was a double denial of the bail benefit. For oneJtn^jg tip? miserable mason,
the petitioner before us, could not afford to procure that huge sum or manage
a surety of sufficient prosperity. Affluents do not befriend indigents. For
another, the magistrate made an odd order refusing to accept the suretyship
of the petitioner’s brother because he and his assets were in another district.
2. If mason and millionaire were treated alike, egregious illegality
is an inevitability. Likewise, geographic allergy at the judicial^ level makes
mockery of equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. India
is one and not a conglomeration of districts, untouchabl.y- apart.
3. When this Court’s order- for release was thus frustrated by magis¬
terial intransigence the prisoner moved this Court again to modify the
original order “to the extent that petitioner be released on furnishing surety
to the tune of Rs. 2,000 or on executing a personal bond or pass any other order
or direction as this Hqn’blc Court may d6em fit.and proper”. From this
factual matrix three legal issues arise (1) Can the Court, under the Code
of Criminal Procedure; enlarge, on his ownbond without sureties, a person
undergoing incarceratipn for a non-bailffble/ offence either as undertrial or
as 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 baii^
and (3) Is it v^thiniithe power of the Court to reject a
surety because heor his estate is situate in a different district or State?
4. This formulation turns the focus on an aspect of liberty bearing
on bail jurisprudence. The victims, when suretyship is insisted on or heavy
sums are demanded by way of bail or local bailors alone are persona grata,
Snay w-ell 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 it,'s vast diversity. In fact the grant of bail can be stultified or made
inhÔSSibly inconvenient and expensive if the Court is powerless to dispense
[online1^ SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 may be both 4 V
exasperating and expensive. The problem is plainly one of human rights,; '
'J
especially freedom vis-a-vis the lowly. This poignant import of the problem
persuaded the Chamber Judge* to invite the Supreme Court Bar Association .
and the Citizens for Democracy to assist the Court in decoding the Code
and its provisions regarding bail. The Kerala State Bar Federation:%as
permitted to intervene and counsel for the parties also made ûbniissiofi^.
We record our appreciation of the amici curiae for their services and proceed
to discuss the triple issues formulated above.
5. There is already a direction for grant of bail by this Court itg- favour
of the petitioner and so the merits of that matter do not have to be examined
now. It is a sombre reflection that many little Indians are forced into
long cellular servitude for little offences because never conclude and iritis
bailors are beyond their meagre means. The new awareness about human
rights imparts to what might appear to be a small Concern relating to
small men a deeper meaning. That is why j;we -haV^: d to examine
the question from a wider perspective bearing in mind prisoner’syights in
an international setting and informing ourS^lyesJjf the -historical origins and
contemporary trends in this branch of lawit, Social Justice is the signature
tune of our Constitution and the little plan (n peril of losing his ItbpMy is
the consumer of Social Justice. . l
6. There is no definition of bail in the Code although offences are
classified as bailable and non-bailable. The actual sections which deal with
bail, as we will presently show, are of blurred semantic?. We have to interdict
judicial arbitrariness deprivatory of liberty and ensure ‘fair procedure’ which
has a creative connotation after Mcmeka GandhiK: 'V, ;
'’i'
Before we tutn to the provisions of the Code and dwell on the text
7.
of the sections we may as well remember what Justice Frankfurter said :
“there is no surer wayjp misread a documppt Jo read it liteially*”. tân
8. Speaking ^c^rera^y, we agree îtff tlie annotation of the expression
‘bail’ given in tile American Jurisprudence^ Fdn. Vol. 8, Article 2,
p. 783)
The term ‘bail bond’ ah^ ‘recognizance’ are used interchangeably
in many bail statutes, ahd quite generally without distinction by the ,
courts; and are given a practically identical effect.

According W* the American Jurisprudence Article 6, p. 785, there is power
the court to release the defendant without bail oi on his own recognizance.
ifi
^Likewise; the definition of bail as given in Webster’s Third Xew International
Dictionary: “The process by which a person is released from custody”.
& * WJniticc V. R. Krishna Iyer

1 I SCC 74ft
2. Massachusetts B. & Insurance Co. v
I T«i 1<i7 IT« 17ft IIO
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moti ram v. state of m. p. {Krishna Iyer, J.) 51
9. The concept of bail has a long history briefly set out in the publi- .
cation on ‘Programme in Criminal Justice Reform’ : v
The concept of bail has a long history and deep roots in English
and American law. In medieval England, the custom grew out of the t %
need to free untried prisoners from disease-ridden jails while they were
waiting for the delayed trials conducted by travelling justices. Prisoners
were bailed, or delivered, to reputable third parties of their own- choos¬
ing who accepted responsibility for assuring their appearance at trial,
If the accused did not appear, his bailor would stand trial in his place, y"
Eventually it became the practice for property owners who accepted
responsibility for accused persons to forfeit money when ; their charges
failed to appear for trial. From this grew the modern practice of
posting a money bond through a commercial bondsman who receives a
cash premium for his service, and usually demands some collateral as
well. In the event of non-appearance the bond is forfeited, after a
grace period of a number of days during which the bondsman may
produce the accused in court.* g
10. It sounds like a culture of bonded labour; and yet are we to cling
to it ! Of course, in the United States, since theti, the bondsman emerged
as a commercial adjunct to the processes of criminal justice, which, fn turn,
bred abuses and led to reform movements like the Manhattan Bail Project.
This research project spurn'd the National Bail Conference, held in <1964,
which in its crucial chain reaction jirovided the major impetus to a reform
of bail law across the United States. The seminal statutory, outcome of
this trend was the enactment of the Bail Reform Act of 1966 signed into
law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, It is noteworthy that Chief Justice
Earl Warren, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and other legal luminaries
shared the view that bail reforfp was necessary. & Indeed, this legislative
'
scenario has a lesson for India where a much litter Crirninal Procedure Code,
1973 has largely left untouched ancient provisions on this subject, incongruous
with the Preamble to the Constitution. ..g '
An aside. Hopefully, one wishes that socio-legal research projects

11.
in India were started to examine our current Hail system. Are researchers
and jurists speechless on such issues because pundits regard these small men’s
causes not worthwhile^; Is the art of academ ic monitoring of legislative per¬
?
formance irrelevant fpr India? ;
12. The American Act Jpf 1966 has Stipulated, inter alia, that release
should be granted in non-capital cases where there is reasonable assurance
the individual will reappear when required ; that the Courts should make use
of a variety of release options depending on the circumstances ; that infor¬
mation should be developed about the individual on which intelligent
.selection of alternatives should be based.
V , 13- The Manhattan Bail Project, conducted by the Vera Foundation

3. Vera Institute of Justice Ten-year Report 1961-71, p. 20
-
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the Institute of Judicial Administration at New York University School

of Law, found that about sixty-five per cent of all felony defendants inter¬
viewed could be recommended for release without bail. Of 2,195 defendants
released in this way less than one per cent failed to appear, when required. In
short, risk of financial loss is an insubstantial deterrent to flight for a large
number of defendants whose ties with the community are sufficient to bring
them to court.
14. The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Defendants/
presumed innocent are subjected to the psychological and physical depriva¬
tions of jail life, usually under more onerous conditions than are imposed^,
on convicted defendants. The jailed defendant loses his job if he has one 1
and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence.
Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on
the innocent members of his family.
15. It is interesting that American criminological thinking and research
had legislative response and the Rail Reforms Act, 1966 came into being.
The then President, Lyndon B. Johnson made certainobserVations at the
signing ceremony : B
Today, we join to recognize a major development in our system
of criminal justice : the reform of the bail system.?’7 §
—
W
—
This system has endured archaic, Wyust-.and Virtually unexamined
since the Judiciary Act of 1789.
»
The principal purpose of bail is tp insure that an accused person

will return for trial if he is released after arrest. -
How is that purpose met under the present system? The defendant
with means can afford to pay bail. . He can afford to buy his freedom.
But the poorer defendant cannot pay the price. He languishes in jail weeks,
months and perhaps even years before trial.
He does not stay in jail because he is guilty.| J’
He does not stay-in jail because any sentenep has been passed.
He does not stay in jail because he is any more likely to flee before trial.
He stays in jail for one reason only— because he is poor . . . .
(emphasis added)
16. Coming to studies made in India by^ knowledgeable Committees
we find the same connotation of bail as including release on one’s own bond
being treated as implicit in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Gujarat Committee* from which wd quote extensively, dealt with this
matter in depth :
The bail system, as we see it administered in the criminal courts
/ today, is extremely unsatisfactory and needs drastic change. In the
fi first place it is virtually impossible to translate risk of non-appearance
$5 by the accused into precise monetary terms and even its basic premise
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moti ram v. state of m. f. {Krishna Iyer, J.) 53
that risk of financial loss is necessary to prevent the accused from fleeing
is of doubtful validity. There are several considerations which deter
an accused from running away from justice and risk of financial loss is
only one of them and that too not a major one. The experience of
enlightened Bail Projects in the United States such as Manhattan Bail
Project and D. C. Bail Project shows that even without monetary bail
it has been possible to secure the presence of the accused at the trial ife
quite a large number of cases. Moreover, the bail system causes discrimi¬
nation against the poor since the poor would not be able to furnish bail
on account of their poverty while the wealthier persons otherwise
similarly situate would be able to secure their freedom because they
can afford to furnish bail. This discrimination arises even if the amount
of the bail fixed by the Magistrate is not high, for a large majority of
those who are brought before the Courts in criminal cases are so poor that they
would find it difficult to furnish bail even in a small amount. (emphasis added)
17. The vice of the system is brought out in the Report :
The evil of the bail system is that either the poor accused has to
fall back on touts and professional sureties for providing; bail or suffer
pre-trial detention. Both these consequences are fraught with great
hardship to the poor. In one case the poor accused is fleeced of his
moneys by touts and professional sureties and sometimes haseveu to
incur debts to make payment to themfor Securing his release ; in the
other he is deprived of his liberty without trial and conviction and- this
leads to grave consequences, namely (I ) though presumed innocent
he is subjected to the psychological and physical deprivations qf jail life ;
(2) he loses his job, if he has one, and js deprived of j hp. opportunity
to work to support himself and his family with the result that burden
of his detention falls heavily on the innocent the family,
(3) he is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence;
mem^fsôf
and (4) the public exchequer has to bear the cost of maintaining him
in the jail.4
18. The Encyclopaedia Britannica brings Out the same point even in
more affluent societies : £
Bail, procedure hy which a judge or jpagiktrate sets at liberty one
who has been arrested, or imprisoned, upon receipt of security to ensure
the released prisoner’s later appearance iri^ court for further proceed¬
ings. . . . Failure. to consider financial,’ability has generated much con-
troveisv in recent years, for bail rcquarpmCTtts may discriminate against
poor people and certain minority groups who are thus deprived of an
equal opportunity to secure their- freedom pending trial. Some courts
now give sp^ciahconsideration tn indigent accused persons who, because
of thru comn^jmity standing and past history, are considered likely to
appeal; in court.5 A ’
18A. Again :
Wc should suggest that the Magistrate must always bear in mind
that, monetaiy bail is not a necessary element of the criminal process and even
4. Report of the Legal Aid Committee P. N. Bhagwati, p. 185
appointed by the Government of 5. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. I, p. 73G
Gujarat, 1971 and headed by the then (15th Edn) Micro Edn.
£ Chief Just-ce of the State, Mr, Justice
|O N LI N E~^ SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54 SUPREME COURT CASES (1978) 4 SCO

if risk of monetary loss is a deterrent against fleeing from justice, it is
not only deterrent and there are other factors which are sufficient'
deterrents against flight. The Magistrate must abandon the antiquated concept
under which pre-trial release could be ordered only against monetary bail. That
concept is out-dated and experience has shown that it has done more harm
than good. The new insight into the subject of pre-trial release which
has now been developed in socially advanced countries and particularly
the United States should now inform the decisions of the Magistrates
in regard to pre-trial release. Every other feasible method of pre-trial
release should be exhausted before resorting to monetary bail. The
practice which is now being followed in the United States is that the
accused should ordinarily be released on order to appearytor on his
own recognizance unless it is shown that there is substantial.risk of non-
appearance or there are circumstances justifying imposition of condi¬
tions on release. . . If a Magistrate is satisfied after making an enquiry
into the condition and background of the accused that the accused has his
roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely release the
accused on order to appear or on his own recognizance. (^mphasis added)
19. A latter Committee with Judges, lawyers,members of Parliament
and other legal experts, came to the same conclusion and proceeded on the
assumption that release on bail included release on the accused's own bond :
. . . We think that a liberal policy of conditional release without
monetary sureties or financial security and release on one's own recog¬
nizance with punishment provided for violation will go a long way
to reform the bail system and help the weaker and poorer sections of
the community to get equal justice under law. Conditional release
may take the form of entrusting the accused to the care of his relatives or
releasing him on supervision., The court or the authority granting bail
may have to use the discretion judiciously. When^he accused is too
poor to find sureties, there will be no point in insisting on his furnishing
bail with sureties, as it will only compel him to be in custody with the
consequent handicaps in making his defence.7
20. Thus, the legal literature, Indian and Anglo-American, on bail
jurisprudence lends countenance to the contention; .that bail, loosely used,
is comprehensive enough IO cover release on One’s own bond with or without
sureties. sF
21. We have explained later that the power of the Supreme Court to
enlarge a person during the pendency of a Special Leave Petition or of an
appeal is very wide, as Order 21 Rule .27 of the Supreme Court Rules
discloses. In thiit sense, a consideration of the question as to whether the
High Court or the subordinate courts have powers to enlarge a person on
his own Bond without sureties may not strictly arise. Even so, the guide¬
lines which prevail with the Supreme Court when granting suspension of
/sentence must, in a broad sense, have relevance to what the Code indicates
' except where special circumstances call for a different course. Moreover,
—
the advocates who participated many of them did covered the wider area —
F 6. Supra Note 4, p. 185 Aid— Pnctuual Justice to the People,
£ 7. Report of the Expert Committee on Legal May 1973
% 4'
eft-*"
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moti ram v. state of m. p. {Krishna Iyer, J.) 55

yf ' ' '
'
of release under the Code, whether with or without sureties, and that is why -
we consider the relevant provisions of the Code in some detail. V,
22. Let us now examine whether there is anything in the provisions x;"'
%
of the Code which make this meaning clearly untenable. & 5
. >>
23. A semantic smog overlays the provisions of bail in the Code apd
prisoners’ rights, when cast in ambiguous language become precarious.
Where doubts arise the Gandhian talisman becomes a tool of interpretation :
“Whenever you are in doubt. . . apply the following test. Recall the face
of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask
yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any .use to him.”
Law, at the service of life, must respond interpretatively to raw realities
and make for liberties. 4
24. Primarily Chapter XXXIII is (he nidus of the law of bail. Sec¬
tion 436 of the Code speaks of bail but the proviso, makes a contradistinction
between ‘bail’ and ‘own bond without sureties’. Even here there is an
ambiguity, because even the proviso comes in only if, as indicated, .in the
substantive part, the accused in a bailable offence ‘is prepared to give bail’.
Here, ‘bail’ suggests ‘with or without sureties’.;;; And, ‘bail bond’ in Sec¬
tion 436(2) covers own bond. Section 437 (2) blandly speaks of bail but
speaks of release on bail of persons below 16 years of age, sick or infirm
people and women. It cannot be that a small boy or sinking invalid or
pardanashin should be refused release and suffer stress and distress in prison
unless sureties are haled into a far-off court with obligation for frequent
appearance: ‘Bail’ there suggests release, the accent being on undertaking
to appear when directed, not on the production of sureties. But Sec¬
tion 437(2) distinguishes between bail and bond without sureties.
25. Section 445. suggests, especially read with the marginal note, that
deposit of money will do duty for bond or without sureties’. Sec¬
tion 441(1) of the Code may appear to b^ a stumbling block in the way of
the liberal interpr^taUpn of bail as covering *<wn bond with and without
sureties. Superficially viewed, it uses the Words ‘bail’ and ‘own bond’ as
antithetical, if the reading is literal.?? Incisively understood, Section 441(1)
provides -for both t«e bond of the accused and the undertaking of the
surety being conditioned in the manner mentioned *n the sub-section. To
read ‘bailâs including only cases of release with sureties will stultify the
spb-scction ; for then, an accused released on his own bond without bail,
pc. surety, cannot be conditioned to attend at the appointed place. Sec¬
tion 44 1(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
of potential, may be released by the court to further the ends of justice and
nothing in Section 441(1) compels a contrary meaning.
®
[ONLINE^ TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26. Section 441(2) and (3) use the word ’bail’ generically because the r
expression is intended to cover bond with or without sureties.
27. The slippery aspect is dispelled when we understand the import
of Section 389(1) which reads :
389(1): Pending any appeal by a convicted person the Appellate
^
Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the
execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and,
also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his
own bond.
The court of appeal may release a convict on his own bond without sureties.
Surely, it cannot be that an under-trial is worse off than a
the
pF that coronet
the power of the court to release increases when guilt is established.
It is not the court’s status but the applicant’s 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 absurdem. ®
28. Likewise, the Supreme Court’s powers to enlarge a prisoner, as
the wide words of Order 2 1 Rule 27 (Supreme Court Rules) show, contain
no limitation based on sureties. Counsel for the State agree that this is
so, which means that a murderer, concurrently found to be so, may theore¬
tically be released on his own bond without sureties while a suspect, pre¬
sumed to be innocent, cannot. Sucha strange anomaly could lidt be,
even though it is true that the Supreme Court, exercises wider powers with
greater circumspection. W "W a, Aitc..
29. The truth, perhaps, is . that indecisive and imprecise language is
unwittingly used, not knowing the draftsman’s golden rule
In drafting it is not enough to gain a degree pf precision which a
person reading in good faith can understandjbut it is necessary to
attain if possible toa degree of precision which a person reading in bad
faith cannot misunderstand.8
30. If sureties afê obligatory even for juveniles, females and sickly
accused while they tan be dispensed with', after being found guilty, if
during trial whej^ thdpresencc to instruct lawyers is more necessary, an
accused must Vuy 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 we read ‘bail’ to mean that it popularly does, and
lexically ai^d in American Jurisprudebfee is stated to mean, viz. a generic
expression used to describe judicial release from custodia juris. Bearing in
mind the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice, individual
freedom j and indigents’s rights,? we hold that bail covers both— release on
zone’s own bond, with or without sureties. When sureties should be demanded
and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variables.
$
ft;
g. Lux Gentium Lex — Then and Now, 1799-1974, p. 7
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moti RAM v. STATE of M. p. (Krishna Iyer, J.) 51
—
31. Even so, poor men Indians are, in monetary terms, indigents y —
young persons, infirm individuals and women are weak categories and courts &
should be liberal in releasing them on their own recognisances put what-
ever reasonable conditions you may.
—
32. It shocks one's conscience to ask a mason like the petitioner to
furnish sureties for Rs. 10,000. The magistrate must be given the? benefit
of doubt for not fully appreciating that our Constitution, enacted by ‘We,
the People of India’, is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candle¬
—
stick maker shall we add, the bonded labour and pavement dweller. r
33. To add insult to injury, the magistrate has demanded sureties

from his own district ! (We assume the allegation in the petition); What
is a Malayalee, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged
misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgam
or Chandni Ghowk? He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant
places. He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch
or to seek a job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is
surest achieved by such provincial allergies. What jaw prescribes suretic s
from outside or non-regional language applications? What law prescribes
the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court
district? This tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic, sometimes
linguistic, sometimes legalistic. Article 14 protects all Indians qua Indians,
within the territory of India. Article 350 sanctions representation to any
authority, including a court, for 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 any State language according to the law in that State
must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India save where a valid
legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfree in Free
India, and likewise many other minorities. 'This divagation has become
necessary to still the judicial beginnings, and td inhibit the process of making
Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is made of united stuff.
34. We mandate > the magistrate to release the petitioner on his own
bond in a sum of Rs. 1 ,000.
An afterword. '
S /
35. We Idave it to Parliament to c onsider whether in our socialist
republic^ with social justice as its hallmark, monetary superstition, not other
relevant considerations like family ties, roots in the community, membership
of stable (organisations, should prevail for bail bonds to ensure that the
‘bailee’ does not flee justice. The best guarantee of presence in court is
the reach of the law, not thp money tag. A parting thought. If the
indigents arc not to be betrayed by the law including bail law, re-writing
of many proccssual laws is an urgent desideratum ; and the judiciary will do
Vvell to remember that the geo-legal frontiers of the Central Codes cannot
be disfigured by cartographic dissection in the name of language or province.

Chima Judgment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chima Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

New Delhi Adarsh Priyadarshi And Associates

2023 SCC OnLine SC 483

In the Supreme Court of India

SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021

Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. (AC)

Mr. Raghavendra S Srivatsa, AOR

Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR

Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR

Mr. Niranjana Singh, AOR

on 30.01.2023. After recording the discussions which have been held, it

The surest cuayto legal research !

10. With a view to ameliorate the problems a number of directions

for intervention and appropriate directions by the National Law

STATE, NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent

This is a digitally signed order.

This is a digitally signed order.

STATE ..... Respondent

This is a digitally signed order.

KI Makan, Nasbandi Colony, Bengali Masjid, Loni, Dist. Ghaziabad, U.P.

This is a digitally signed order.

2022 SCC OnLine Chh 1020

In the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer Marwahi ...

9. Thereafter, their Lordships relying upon Gujarat Committee Report proceeded to

5171 3rff|fc)f^d SfafTTJ? eqRh 5T7T SnftcT clRd 7?}

“4?b Pleiad 47 SfRST & 3^7 dR 4F $

t nt apfteftq "tiwidii £ trait t 4? 97 4T aw} to 94 97 ate

Ajay Verma v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)

2017 SCC OnLine Del 12743

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Ajay Verma .…. Petitioner

to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

“Declaration by sureties-Every person standing surety to an accused person

courts for consideration.

(b) Any change(s) in the section(s)/offence(s) during the course of

422 SUPREME COURT CASES (1996) 3 SCC

(1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 422ft ft c

R D. UPADHYAY v STATE OF A.P. 423

424 SUPREME COURT CASES (1996) 3 SCC

(1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 424

KUNJAMMA PILLAI SAROJINI AMMA

Shankara & ors. Vs. State 275

1. Hussainara Khatoon’s case AIR 1979 SLC. 1360.

c DALVEER BltANDARI, J. 1. In. our country, a large num¬

276 Indian Law Reports (Delhi) ILR (1996) I Delhi

Shankara & ors. Kv. State 277

A 8. Another factor which must be taken into consideration

278 Indian Law Reports (Delhi) ILR (1996) 1 Delhi

and consequently directed the Inspector General (Prisons),

17 Ttjereafter,^the Inspector General (Prisons) was asked

Shankara & ors. Vs. State 279

A it appropriate to depart from the practice of only giving general

280 Indian Law Reports (Delhi) ILR (1996) 1 Delhi

Appropriate Directions Issued

MOTI RAM V. STATE OF M. P. 47

(1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 47

48 SUPREME COURT CASES (1978) 4 SCC

Mon RAM v. STATE of m. p. (Krishna Iyer, J.)

Advocates who appeared in this case :

50 SUPREME COURT CASES (1978) 4 SCC

courts; and are given a practically identical effect.

& * WJniticc V. R. Krishna Iyer