SATAYA NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN case No. 706 of 1977 pending in the Court of Munsif arid Judicial Magistrate, Beawer the accused petitioners were ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - each and six sureties of Rs. 50,000/ - for each of the accused.

(3.) THOUGH the accused -petitioner have furnished the personal bonds and the sureties as ordered by the two courts below but their grievance is that the courts below have committed a gross error of law in demanding excess amount of bail bonds and surety bonds from them. The further contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that the machinery of criminal court should not be utilised to satisfy the personal vendetta of an individual. The highest punishment provided under Section 420 IPC is seven years' imprisonment and keeping in view the nature of the offence the learned Magistrate ought not to have demanded such an excessive amount of personal bonds and surety bonds. The learned Counsel Mr. Bafna appearing on behalf of the Slate has urged that this is not a fit case in which inherent powers of the Court should be exercised for reducing the personal bonds and surety bonds. Mr. Agarwal appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed on record certain letters alleged to have been written be some of the parties wherein it has been mentioned that they do not want to prosecute their case before a criminal court.