- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 20 September 1977
- Bench
- V. R. Krishna Iyer, N. L. Untwalia
Headnote
Bail-Interim bail pending the hearing of an appeal-Guidelines regarding grant of-Supreme Court Rules 1966, Order XLVII, rule 6, r/w Orller XX/ rule 6.
The petitioner-respondent was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court but released after the judgment of the High Court. The petitioner surren-dered before the trial court as required under Order XXI rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules after leave was granted to the State to file an appeal again•! acquittal by the High Court and moved an applic,Pon for bail.
Granting the bail, the Court, HEID : The basic rule is bail, not jail, except where there are circumstanccg suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the 1ike by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. When considering the question of bail, the gravity of the offence involved and the heinousness of the crime which are likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the 1) course of justice must weigh with the court.·
In the instant case the circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail on monetary suretyship at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the abscondence or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station once every fortnight, He was on bail throughout the trial but was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court. He is not a desparate character or an unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place on him to tum up to take justice at the hands of the court. [536 A·DJ
OBSERV AT/ON:
While the system of pecuniary bail has a tradition behind it, it may well be that in most cases not monetary suretyship but undertaking by relatiom of J the petitioner or organisation to which ·he belongs may be better and-"morc AOcially relevant.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
KRISHNA IYER, J. The petitioner moves for bail having surrender-ed after leave was granted to the State to file an appeal against acquittal by the High Court.
The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the peti-tioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. 'We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while be has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the cour~; his social circums-tances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desparatc character or unsocial elePJwnt who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family tu maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu clo not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. AL the same time any possibility of the abscondencc or evasion or other abuse can ll be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report him<clf
before the notice station at Baren once every fortnight.
'J'hs petitioner will be released. un bail on his entering into a bond of his own and one surety for Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barcn. While the system of pecuniary hail has a tradi'.ion behind it, the time has come for re-thinking on the subject. It may well be that in most cases not mone-tary suretyship but under! aking by relations of the petitioner or organi-sation to which he belongs may be better and more socially relevant. Even so, in this case we stick to the practice and direct the furnishing pf one surety for Rs. 5,000/-.
:\pplicatiOn for intcrvl)ntion al/:J\Vcd.
S.R !Jail gr({nted
Case details
Arising from
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cr!. Misc. Petition No. 1424-1425 of 1977.
(Application for release on Bail).
Appearances
S. M. Jain, for the appellant.
D. Mukherjee, V. S. Dave, R. C. Tyagi and S. S. Khanduja, for the respondent.
l. Makwana, for the intervener.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.