RAJENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was given to RP Heard the parties.

(2.) While granting bail to the petitioners under Sec. 439 Cr.PC. vide his order dated 18.10.97 and 22.10.97 the learned Special Judge directed that the petitioners can be released on bail on their furnishing two local sureties in the amount of 10,000.00 each with personal bonds in the amount of Rs.20.000.00 each. The petitioners appear to have objected against the requirements of producing local sureties but by subsequent order dated 4.11.97 the learned Spl. Judge turned-down their request on the ground that he had become...... officio in the matter and that he can not review his earlier orders. It appears that while applying for modification of the earlier order as had been passed by the learned Special Judge, the petitioner had invited his attention to the law laid-down by the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1978 Cr.L.J. 1703) and in the decision of this Honourable Court in the case of Ahay Singh @ Rajesh @ Pritam & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. (1995 Cr.L. R. (Raj.) 93) Wherein it had been held that the requirements of producing local sureties for releasing on bail was repugnant to the spirit of Constitution and, therefore, bad in law.

(3.) The learned PP. though placed difficulty arising in those case where sureties residing beyond jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate/Court are produced and proceedings under Sec. 446 Cr.PC. have to be initiated for absence of the accused, yet he was fair enough to submit that declaration of the Supreme Court on the point made law of the land under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India and. therefore, has to be followed by the subordinate courts.