SAUDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 16-5-87 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mathura, under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, (for short the Code), disposing of bail applications Nos. 386/87 and 429/87 on behalf of the applicants, who were sought to be prosecuted for the offence under section 302/307/435 I.P.C. The bail application were allowed and the applicants were directed to be released on bail on their executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 5000/- and furnishing two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned, and further there was a condition imposed 114th amount by each of the sureties or each of the applicants was to be deposited in cash so that the applicants may be bound down at the police station not to commit breach of peace.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant urged that under the Code, except under section 445, which was in the alternative, there was no other provision that any amount either of the personal bond or of the surety may be deposited in cash, hence the order passed by the Sessions Judge was arbitrary and against the provisions of the Code. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, urged that the impugned order was correct. The learned counsel for the parties requested that Revision may be decided on merits, it is accordingly being disposed of on merits.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point for determination is as to whether the cash amount could be directed to be deposited by the Sessions Judge, when in fact, there was no apprehension of misusing the bail bonds or that the applicants would tamper with the prosecution witnesses. For this purpose, Sections 437/440/441, 441,443, 444 and 445 of the Code have to be read together. Under section 437 conditions have been provided under which bail can be granted in a non-bailable offence. But nothing has been stated about the sureties or execution of personal bonds. Section 440 enacts that the court shall fix the amount of bond having due regard to the circumstances of each case and such amount shall not be excessive. Section 441 provides that the personal bond shall be executed and one or more sufficient sureties shall be furnished. The duty of sureties has been pointed out, that the person accused shall attend the court at any time and place mentioned either in the bond or as directed from time to time either by the police officer or by the court. Every condition so imposed shall be contained in the bail bond. Section 442 provides that a person, in whose favour the said bond has been executed or sureties have been furnished, shall be released from jail with the direction of the Court. Section 443 cm. powers the court to enhance the amount of sureties in case by some mistake or fraud insufficient sureties have been accepted or subsequently, the sureties appeared to be insufficient. Section 444 of the Code provides that at any time the sureties may make an application that they may be discharged and on that application the Magistrate shall direct the warrant of arrest and the person released on bail may be brought before him and he would direct him to furnish sufficient fresh sureties and in case he fails to do so, he shall be committed to jail. Under the aforesaid provisions there was no indication that any cash amount could be directed to be deposited.