ALOKESH NAIDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While granting bail to the petitioner the Magistrate directed the sureties to produce solvency certificate. This is challenged by him on the ground that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to hold so.

(2.) Section 437(3) Cr. P.C. provides that the Courts can impose any condition which it considers necessary in order to ensure the attendance of the accused in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him or in order to ensure prevention of commission of any offence similar to the one which he is accused of or of the commission of which he is suspected. That apart, the Courts can also impose conditions in the interest of justice.

(3.) The question that arises for consideration is whether the condition imposed by the Magistrate requiring the sureties to produce solvency certificate is beyond his powers. Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that when the accused is granted bail on condition of the executing a bond with two solvent sureties insistence upon the production of solvency certificate is unwarranted. As the code gives wide discretion to the Magistrate to impose any condition which he finds necessary that the time of granting bail to the accused the contention that he cannot insist on the production of solvency certificate by a surety is not tenable. Merely because bail is granted on condition of the execution of bond, with two solvent sureties there is no embargo upon the Magistrate calling upon the sureties to produce solvency certificate.