State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
v.
Balchand @ Baliay
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1424-1425 Of 1977 | 20-09-1977
1. The petitioner moves for bail having surrendered after leave was granted to the State to file an appeal against acquittal by the High Court.
2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating of fences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while lie, has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he, has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice, at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the abscondence or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the notice station at Baren once every fortnight.This petitioner will be released on bail on his entering into a bond of his own and one surety for Rs. 5, 000/- to the satisfaction of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baren. While the system of pecuniary bail has a tradition behind it, the time has come for rethinking on the subject. It may well be that in most cases not monetary suretyship but undertaking by relations of the petitioner or organisation to which he be longs may be better and more socially relevant. Even so, in this case we stick to the practice and direct the furnishing of one surety for Rs. 5, 000/-. Application for intervention allowed.
4. Bail granted.
Advocates List
S. M. Jain, D. Mukherjee, V. S. Dave, R. C. Tyagi and S . S. Khanduja, I. Makwana, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE V. R. KRISHNA IYER
HON'BLE JUSTICE N. L. UNTWALIA
Eq Citation
[1978] 1 SCR 535
1977 ACR 35
1977 WLN 495
(1977) 4 SCC 308
1978 CRILJ 195
AIR 1977 SC 2447
(1977) SCC (CRI) 594
1977 UJ 650
LQ/SC/1977/268
HeadNote
— Grant of bail — Grounds for refusal of bail — Circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in shape of repeating of fences or intimidating witnesses and the like — Basic rule — Bail not jail except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in shape of repeating of fences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court — We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative — Penal Code, 1860 — S. 439 — Bail after grant of leave to appeal against acquittal