R R CHARI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by R.R. Chari for reduction of the amount of bail on which he has been released. It appears that the applicant was wanted in connection with certain offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code said to have been committed by him while he was posted on Government service in Kanpur. He was arrested in Madras on 28-10-1947 in pursuance of a bailable warrant issued by the District Magistrate of Kanpur. The warrant specified that he should be released on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each of Rs. 50,000. After his arrest he was so released by the Commissioner of police at Madras and was directed to appear before the District Magistrate of Kanpur at 11 A.M. on 26-11-1947. He did appear before the District Magistrate on that date. The District Magistrate then decided to re-arrest him and sent him to jail. A point has been raised that this action of the District Magistrate was not proper and that the applicant should be allowed to remain on bail furnished in Madras. That, however, is not possible now because the District Magistrate haying taken him in custody on 26-11-1947, the bail on which he was released in Madras must automatically be deemed to have been cancelled. It is not, therefore, possible to revive that bail. That is the reason why the applicant had to give fresh bail when he was later released by the Special Magistrate who is in charge of the applicant's case.

(2.) The matter of bail came up before the Special Magistrate on 27-11-1947 and the Magistrate passed an order granting bail to the applicant on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each of Rs. 25,000. The order of the Magistrate further shows that at this stage, after the Magistrate had decided to give bail to the applicant as above, the prosecuting Inspector pointed out to him that the sureties should be ordered to furnish security in cash or movable property as immovable property could not be given as security. The Prosecuting Inspector wanted to cite a case of this Court in support of his contention. The point was contested on behalf of the applicant and 29-11-1947 was fixed for final orders.

(3.) On that day, the Prosecuting Inspector cited the case in Nisar Ahmad v. Emoeror . That case lays down that immovable property cannot be sequestered in case a bond has to be forfeited unless there is a registered security bond. The leaned Magistrate after referring to that case said that, under those circumstances, he was bound to order that cash security should be furnished. The actual order of the leaned Magistrate may well be put down here because there is some dispute as to whether there was an offer of cash security by the applicant or whether there was a demand of it by the Magistrate. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: Under these circumstances, I am bound to order that cash security be furnished. I am informed by the counsel for the accused that he will furnish cash security to the extent of Rs. 25.000 and he prays that two personal and reliable sureties of Rs. 25,000 and 19.000 more be accepted. I shall pass further orders on 112-1947 when cash security is furnished.