KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been directed seeking modification in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, dated June 6, 1985, whereby he granted bail to the accused but directed that the accused- Petitioner should submit a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount and further that the surety should be the resident of Tonk District.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that this order requires interference on two counts. Firstly that the amount of the personal bond and surety bond is highly excessive and secondly that the learned Sessions Judge could not have forced the petitioner to bring a surety from Tonk District, particularly because the accused petitioner is a resident of Bundi and then no discrimination can be made between a domicile of one place and the domicile of another place.

(3.) I have perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The anticipatory bail was sought for in a case under Sec. 420, I.P.C. where the Bank is alleged to have been cheated for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Once the court thought it proper that the case is fit for grant of anticipatory bait it was incumbent upon the court to have seen the workable feasibility of the order. Directing a party to bring a surety for Rs. 30,000/- and that too to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer is virtually refusing the bail because it can hardly be expected of a S.RO. that he will accept the surety bond of a person to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- without asking him to run from pillar to post and bring strict proof regarding solvency and even if surety files an affidavit the same would not be accepted. There is every likelihood that accused- Petitioner would be harassed. It may so happen that if the accused goes with the surety to the police station and offers a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 30,000/- and produces the surety the solvency may not be accepted ex facie and the accused may be detained. In that case the very purpose of granting anticipatory bail would be frustrated. Secondly while granting the bail, much less anticipatory bail, criteria is not the amount for which the cheating has been done, but the very purpose is to secure attendance of the accused and that there is moral force behind the person as well. It is of en noticed that when the accused at times remains absent and the bail bonds and surety bonds are ordered to be forfeited, a nominal amount is realized in cases where the accused re-appears and thus no such orders need be passed which in the long run are followed in breach rather than in observance. In my opinion an amount of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount is virtually negativing the indulgence granted to the accused, this amount deserves to be substantially reduced. I, therefore, direct that the amount of rupees 30,000/- be reduced to that of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount.