LAXMI NARAIN GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner there are five criminal cases pending against him. In all these cases, it is his assertion, orders directed him to be released on bail have been passed. Mr. Sharma however submits that in one of those oases namely cases registered under FIR No. 294182 for in offence under Section 420|468|471 of Indian Penal Code, there. is no order directing the petitioner to be releaed on bail. The petitioner has specifically averred that he has been directed to be releaed on bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 2000.00 with a surety in the like amount in that case also. I am inclined to accept the averment of the petitioner for the obvious reason that the petitioner. It is admitted. was on bail in all the cases pending against him till 30th April, 1985 when the surety, who happens to be the pertitioner's wife got her bouds discharged. The plea in this petition and also in the connected petition (Criminal Mic. (M) 1370/85) is that the petitioner be released on furnishing single surety in all these five cases as he is unable to arrange for five sureties. The fact that he is not in a position to do so is not controverted in view of the admitted position that he is in Jail in spite of the order direction him to be released on bail The reasons which prompted the petitioner's wife to have her surety bond cancelled need not be discussed as these have no relevance on the decision of this petition.

(2.) Mr. D. R. Sethi, amicus curiae has addressed me at length on the legal points which arise in a case like the preseat. His submission is that in a fit. case where the accused is unable to furinsh a surety it is open to the Court to release him even on furnishing of a personal bail bond. In support of his plea, he cites a number of authorities. I may notice only two of them as in , the Supreme Court has laid criteria to be allowed for releasing undertrials who are unable to furnish a surety. Their Lordships have noticed that the problem is that of human rights, "especially freedom vis-a-vis the lovly". Krishna Iyer J. speaking for the Court said that it is interesting that American criminological thinking and research had legislative response and thus the Bail Reforms Act. 1966 came into being in that country but vice of the bail system as pointed outlay various Committees to a great extent still prevails in our country.

(3.) The Court took note of the Report of. the Legal Aid Committee appointed by the Gujarat Government wherein has been stated :-