FAZIL ALI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused of having assembled on 2.1.2008 along with others for the purpose of committing dacoity. He was ordered to released on bail vide order dated 20.3.2008 by the Sessions Judge, Jhajjar on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount. It was further observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar that since the petitioner is a resident of District Saharnpur, therefore, in order to ensure his presence during trial, he would deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash while submitting the personal bond. Likewise, the surety was also required to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith the surety bond before the trial Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is unreasonable if seen in context to the law laid by the Supreme Court in Moti Ram and others v. State of M.P., AIR 1978 SC 1594, where an order rejecting the surety on account of he or his surety being situated in a different district was held to be discriminatory and illegal. In the said case the Supreme Court had authorized the Magistrate to release the accused on his own bond of Rs. 1000/-.

(3.) IN view of the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram's case (supra), the condition imposed upon the petitioner is unreasonable. In this context the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 30 and 31 are reproduced hereunder :-