MT. BHAGWAN KAUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for determination in this revision petition is simple though interesting. The Petitioner Mst. Bhagwan Kaur was bound down under Section 107 and was asked to burnish a personal bond for Rs. 5000/ - with one surety in the like amount "of her close relation for keeping the peace for one year. The Petitioner contends that the condition imposed by the Magistrate that the surety should be one of her close relations was illegal. Now according to the words of Section 112, Code of Criminal Procedure it was within the power of the Court to lay down a condition regarding the number, character and class of sureties and what is to be decided is whether the condition imposed by the Magistrate can come within the ambit of the words "character" and "class". Mr. Chetan Dass who appears on behalf of the State contends that taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the fact that the Petitioner is a married woman, there was nothing unreasonable to require that her surety should be one of her close relations. He also refers me to the observations appearing in the Magistrate's order of 17 -10 -1952 in which he explained the words "close relations" as meaning brother, father, maternal uncle, husband, husband's brother etc. The Petitioner's counsel, however argues that since there was unpleasantness between the Petitioner and her relations, because she was suspected of having a liaison with a stranger, none of her relations could come forward to stand surety for her and the result of the Magistrate's order was that though she was to be released on furnishing a bond and a surety, in fact, she would have to undergo imprisonment for a year.

(2.) FOR all these reasons I accept the petition to the extent that I set aside the condition imposed by the Magistrate that the surety should be a close relative of the Petitioner and in its place direct that the surety should be a respectable -land -holder or a house owner.