RATAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and the learned AGA.

(2.) In Moti Ram and others v. State of M.P., 1978 4 SCC 47 and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1980 1 SCC 81, the Apex Court has reproached subordinate Courts for considering the obligation to pay a sum of money on forfeiture of the bonds or sureties for non-appearance to be the only means for enforcing the attendance of the accused to face trial or to receive sentence, and for fixing bail amounts only in terms of the nature of the crime, which approach favours the wealthy and discriminates against the impecunious litigant, and eschews other criteria, such as the roots of an accused in the community, his financial standing, or other features, such as the incapacity of an accused to abscond on account of his young or old age, or being a woman, or physically infirm or ailing. For failure of a penurious accused to arrange for the heavy bail amount or local sureties, he is forced to remain in jail for long periods of time even after being granted bail, Krishna Iyer J. speaking for the bench in paragraph 30 in Moti Ram has directed: