Joy Nibaran Bishawas @ Jayant Sarkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

passed Sessions Court. It settled position granting subordinate courts expected follow provisions Chapter Cr.P.C. If satisfied 33 applicant entitled released bail, certain conditions imposed commensurate provisions section 441 Cr.P.C. It discretion Court either 4 impose cash security or direct the accused to furnish sureties.

8. However, Apex Motiram Va. of Motiram Va. Motiram Va. State State State M.P. M.P. M.P. reported reported reported 1978 1978 1978 S.C. S.C. S.C. 1594 1594 1594 imposing conditions granting applicant, conditions should imposed, either inherently impossible perform applicant financially otherwise a position fulfil. In present case, offences present applicant allegedly committed, serious, Sessions Court passing reasoned conclusion applicant entitled released bail. The Sessions further observed evidence indicate applicant committed victim After having conclusion, view, further condition imposing directing furnish security Rs. girl. exessive illegal. The Supreme Court Keshab Keshab Keshab Narayan Narayan Narayan Banerjee Banerjee Banerjee (Supra) (Supra) (Supra) imposition additional condition practically amounts denial therefore, quashed condition. I agreement 5 Madras High Court Alluvdin Alluvdin Alluvdin (supra). (supra). (supra). It profitable consider observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 3 of the said judgment which read as under: "While granting bail under Chapter 33 of Cr.P.C., the provisions found therein have to be scrupulously followed by the Subordinate Courts. Section 441 Cr.P.C. reads that before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the court thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person. Section 441 does not speak about deposit of any cash security. Only in certain contingencies, where the accused is unable to secure sureties for his release, he is permitted to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory Note as the court may fix in lieu of executing such bond, under section 445 Cr.P.C. Therefore, imposing deposit of cash security along with execution of bond with two sureties is not permissible under law. Thus, the trial court as well as the revisional court have contravened the provisions enshrined under section 445 of the Cr.P.C. and on that sole ground, the orders passed by both the courts 6 are liable to be set aside, in so far as the imposition of deposit of amount of Rs. 5,000/- by way of cash security is concerned."

9. The Supreme Court in Motiram’s case supra also has observed as under: "Sec. 445 suggests, especially marginal note, deposit ‘with without sureties‘. Sec.441(1) Code may appear a stumbling liberal interpretation covering viewed, bond’ literal. without sureties. Superficially ‘bail’ ‘own antithetical, reading Incisively understood, S./ 441(1) provides accused undertaking surety conditioned manner mentioned sub-section. To ‘bail’ including release sureties stultify sub-section; then, accused released without bail, i.e. surety, cannot conditioned 7 attend appointed place. Sec. 441 (2) ‘bail’ include ‘own bond’ loosely meaning both. Moreover, accused judicial custody, actual potential, released further justice nothing Sec. 441 (1) compels a contrary meaning. Sec. 441(2) and (3) use the word ‘bail’ generically because the expression is intended to cover bond with or without sureties."

10. In circumstances, additional condition imposed Sessions Court excessive clearly illegal, considering ratio of the judgment, which are mentioned hereinabove.

11. In result, passed Sessions Court modified condition imposed Sessions Court directing applicant furnish security Rs. aside. However applicant furnish sureties Rs. lac. The applicant furnish permanent residence State West Bengal. 8 It submitted applicant presently residing Pune accordingly release, shall report to Sahakarnagar police station twice in a month.

12. Application is disposed of in the above terms. ...