SUNDER CHHANNA SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the record clearly shows the Accused is from Thane while the Surety is from Osmanabad District, the legitimate apprehension expressed by the Ld. Magistrate in his order of rejecting the surety cannot be said to be improper exercise of jurisdiction. While accepting the surety, the Ld. Magistrate has to be satisfied that the surety is not only solvent but will be in a position to produce the accused and would be able to procure the presence of the accused when required. Hence, I do not see any reason for interference in the rejection order of the Ld. Magistrate, is required. The Application is rejected.

(2.) Reliance in the case of Moti Ram & Ors V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 CrLJ 1703 is placed on by the Ld. Advocate for the Petitioners. In the said case, the Ld. Magistrate was to take surety in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The Accused could not afford to procure that huge sum or manage a surety of the sufficient prosperity. Further, the Ld. Magistrate demanded sureties from the very District to which the Accused belonged. The Ld. Magistrate refused to accept me surety of the Petitioner's brother because he and his assets were in another District.

(3.) Superficially, this may seem to be a similar situation as is found here. The matter involved in the present proceedings is not the one where the Petitioner is not able to offer either bail bond or surety. The only anxiety is the ability of the surety to keep the check over the accused particularly with regard to the ability of the surety to keep the accused present. While expressing this anxiety and recording his conclusion, the Ld. Magistrate does not say anything about the accused and surety being of two different places. No doubt, the Accused is referred to be of Bombay and the record indicates that he is from Thane. Under these circumstances, the Ld. Magistrate has recorded his decision with dissatisfaction as to the suitability of the surety. The aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, in my opinion, is not helpful to the Petitioners at all.