ABDUL KARIM Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. M. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned PP for the State of Mizoram.

(2.) REVISION petitioner Sh. Abdul Karim was arrested by Mamit Police in connection with Mamit Police Station Case No. 1389/07 and 1512/07 registered under Sections 489 (B) and 489 (C) of the IPC and put him behind the bar. Revision petitioner was, subsequently released on bail after completion of statutory period of 90 days as provided under Section 167 Cr. P. C. since the investigating agency failed to return both the cases in final form within the statutory period. Bail was granted by the learned ADM (J), Aizawl for Rs. 1,00,000/- in both the cases with a surety of like amount. But the revision petitioner being unable to arrange surety/sureties as directed by the Court, preferred an application again before the adm (J), Aizawal for reduction of the bail amount. The learned Court, after taking into consideration of the matter in its entirety reduced the bail amount to Rs. 50,000. But despite such reduction, the revision petitioner still is unable to procure surety/ sureties since none agrees to stand as such in view of amount of bail ordered. Revision petitioner is still languishing in Jail. Hence, this present revision petition has been filed seeking further reduction in the bail amount.

(3.) MR. M. M. Ali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in support of the application submitted that the revision petitioner, being a man hailing from Tripura is unable to procure a surety for Rs. 50,000/-as per order of the Court and for that reason, he has filed this application under Sections 482/327/401 of Cr. P. C. It is further submitted by him that the intention behind the grant of bail with surety/sureties is to secure the presence of the accused in a subsequent proceeding that may be proceeded against him before a Court and to avoid abscondence. Therefore, the Court while dealing with a bail application must take all matters into consideration including the gravity of the offence (s) alleged and the imprisonment provided therefore. Intention of the Court should not be reflected otherwise by ordering a bail for an excessive amount which would not be a reach of the common people. According to Mr. M. M. Ali, with that intention, legislature has incorporated Section 440 in the Code itself. Mr. M. M. Ali, therefor urges this Court to reduce the amount enabling the accused to procure surety for his release from Jail. It is also submitted by him that there is no chance of absconding or jumping from bail, since accused has a root in the society.