http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: MOTI RAM & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/08/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1594            1979 SCR  (1) 335  1978 SCC  (4)  47  CITATOR INFO :  R          1978 SC1601  (7)  R          1979 SC1360  (8)  R          1979 SC1719  (2)  D          1989 SC1841  (5)

ACT:       Bail jurisprudence-Enlargement on bail with or without sureties-Scope of  Ss. 440(1),  441, 445 read with s. 389(1) of the  Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973 -Criteria to guide in quantifying  the amount  of bail and acceptance of surety whose estate  is situate  in a  different district or State, explained.

HEADNOTE:        Pursuant  to the  directions of the Supreme Court for releasing  the   petitioner-appellant  "on   hail   to   the satisfaction  of   the  Chief   Judicial  Magistrate,"   the Magistrate ordered that a surety in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- be produced. When  the petitioner  produced one. the magistrate made an  odd order  refusing to accept the suretyship of the petitioner’s brother  because  he  and  his  asset  were  in another district.  Frustrated by  magisterial  intransigence the prisoner  moved, this Court again to modify the original order "to  the extent  that the  petitioner be  released  on furnishing surety to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- or on executing a personal bond or pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court  may  deem  fit  and  proper".  Directing  the Magistrate to  release the  petitioner on  his own bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- the Court, ^        HELD: (1) Social Justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and  the  littleman  in  peril  of  losing  his liberty is  the consumer of social justice. And the grant of bail can  be stultified  or made impossibly inconvenient and expensive if  the Court is powerless to dispense with surety or to  receive an  Indian bailor across the district borders as good or the sum is so excessive that to procure a wealthy surety may  be both  exasperating and expensive. The problem is plainly  one of  human rights,  especially freedom vis-a- vis,  the  lowly  and  necessitates  the  Supreme  Court  to interdict judicial  arbitrariness deprivatory of liberty and ensure "fair  procedure" which  has a  creative  connotation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

after Maneka Gandhi [1978] 2 SCR 621. [338 C-F. 339 A-B]        (2)  Bail covers  release on  one’s own  bond with or without sureties, as the legal literature, Indian and Anglo- Amemrican on  bail jurisprudence  lends countenance  and the need for  liberal interpretation in areas of social justice, individual freedom  and indigent’s  rights  justifies.  When sureties should  be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variables. [344 G, 347 C]       (3) A semantic smog overlays the provisions of bail in the Code  and prisoners’  rights,  when  cast  in  ambiguous language become precarious. [345 C]        (a).’Bail’  in s.  436 of the Criminal Procedure Code suggests ’with  or without  sureties. And, ’bail bond‘ in s. 436(2) covers own bond. [345 E]        (b) ’Bail’ in s. 437 (2) suggests release, the accent being on  undertaking to  appear. when  directed, not on the production of  sureties. But s. 137(2) distinguishes between bail and bond, without sureties. [345 F-G] 336        (c)  Section 445  suggests, especially  read with the marginal note  that deposit  of money  will do duty for bond ’with or without sureties’. [345 G]        (d) Superficially viewed, s. 441 ( 1 ) uses the words ’bail’ and  ’own bond’  as antithetical,  if the  reading is liberal. Incisively  understood, Section 441(1) provides for both the  bond of  the accused  and the  undertaking of  the surety being conditioned in the manner mentioned in the sub- section. To  read "ail"  as including  only cases of release with sureties  will stultify  the sub-section,  for then, an accused released  on his own bond without bail, i.e. surety, cannot be  conditioned to  attend at  the  appointed  place. Section 441(2)  uses the  word ’bail’  to include ’own bond’ loosely as  meaning one  or the  other or both. Moreover, an accused, in  judicial custody,  actual or  potential, may be released by  the Court  to further  the ends  of justice and nothing in  s 441(1)  compels a  contrary meaning. S. 441(2) and  (3)   use  the  word  ’bail’  generically  because  the expression  is  intended  to  cover  bond  with  or  without sureties; [345 H, 346 A-C]        (e)  When the Court of appeal as per the import of s. ‘389(1) may  release a  convict  on  his  own  bond  without sureties, surely,  it cannot  be that an undertrial is worse off than a convict or that the power of the Court to release increases when  the guilt  is established.  It  is  not  the Court’s status  but  the  applicant  guilt  status  that  is germane. That a guilty man may claim judicial liberation pro tempore without  sureties while  an undertrial  cannot, is a reductio ad absurdum. [346 D-E]        (5) The Supreme Court’s powers to enlarge a prisoner, as the  wide words  of order 21 Rule 27 (Supreme Court Rules 1966) show,  contain no  limitation based on sureties, which means that  a murderer,  concurrently found  to be  so, may. theoretically be  released on  his own bond without sureties while a  suspect, presumed  to be innocent cannot be. Such a strange anomaly  could not  be, even  though it is true that the  Supreme  Court  exercises  wider  powers  with  greater circumspection. [346 F-G]        (6)  If sureties  are obligatory  even for juveniles, females and sickly accused while they can be dispensed with. after being  found guilty,  if during  the  trial  when  the presence to  District lawyers  is more necessary, an accused must buy  release only  with sureties while at the appellate level,  suretyship  is  expendable,  there  is  unreasonable restriction on  personal liberty with discrimination writ on the provisions.  The hornet’s  nest of  Part III need not be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

provoked if the Court reads ’bail’ to mean that it popularly does. and  lexically and in American Jurisprudence is stated to mean,  viz. a  generic expression  used to describe under release from custodia juris. [347 A-B]        (7)  Art. 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Art. 350 sanctions representation to any authority,  including a Court, for redress of grievances in any  language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law  implies that  even a vakalat or affirmation made in and State  language according  to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India, same where a valid  legislation to  the contrary  exists. Otherwise, an Adivasi will  be unfree  in Free  India, and  likewise  many other minorities.  The process  of making  Indians aliens in their own  homeland should  be inhibited. Swaraj is made out of united  stuff. The best guarantee of presence in Court is the reach of law, not the money tag. [347 G-H, 348 A-B, D]      The Court  left open  to the  Parliament  to  consider-      whether in  our socialist  republic with social justice      as its hallmark, monetary supersti- 337           tion, not other relevant consideration like family      ties, roots  in the  community,  membership  of  stable      organisations should  prevail or  bail bonds  to ensure      that the ’bailee’ does not flee justice.]

JUDGMENT:          CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Criminal  Misc. Petition 1649 of 1978. Application for bail.      S. S. Khanduja for the Appellant.      I. N. Shroff and S. K. Gambhir for the Respondent.        V.  M. Tarkunde,  K. T. Harinder Nath, R. K. Jain and H.K. Puri for the Intervener      The order of the Court was delivered by        KRISHNA  IYER, J.-’The law. in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg  in the  streets,  and  to  steal  bread",  lampooned Anatole France.  The reality  of this  caricature  of  equal justice under  the law,  whereby the  poor are priced out of their liberty in the justice market, is the grievance of the petitioner. His  criminal appeal  pends in this Court and he has obtained  an order  for  bail  in  his  favour  "to  the satisfaction  of   the  Chief   Judicial  Magistrate".   The direction of this Court did not spell out the details of the bail, and  so, the magistrate ordered that a surety hl a sum of Rs.  10,000/- be  produced which, in actual impact, was a double denial  of  the  bail  benefit.  For  one  thing  the miserable mason.  the petitioner before us, could not afford to procure  that huge  sum or  manage a surety of sufficient prosperity.  Affluents   do  not   befriend  indigents.  For another, the magistrate made an odd order refusing to accept the suretyship  of the  petitioner’s brother  because he and his assets were in another district.       If mason and millionaire were treated alike, egregious inegality is  an inevitability. Likewise, geographic allergy at the  judicial level  makes mockery of equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. India is one and not a conglomeration of districts, untouchably apart.      When this Court’s order for release was thus frustrated by magisterial  intransigence the  prisoner moved this Court again to  modify the  original order  "to  the  extent  that petitioner be released 338

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

on furnishing  surety to  the tune  of  Rs.  2,000/-  or  on executing a  personal  bond  or  pass  any  other  order  or direction as  this Hon’ble  Court may  deem fit and proper". From this  factual matrix three legal issues arise ( 1 ) Can the Court, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, enlarge, on his  own   bond  without   sureties,  a   person  undergoing incarceration  for   a  non-bailable   offence   either   as undertrial or  as convict who has appealed or sought special leave ?  (2)  If  the  Court  decides  to  grant  bail  with sureties, what  criteria should  guide it in quantifying the amount of  bail, and (3) Is it within the power of The court to reject  a surety because he or his estate is situate in a different district or State ?        This  formulation turns  the focus  on an  aspect  of liberty bearing  on bail  jurisprudence. The  victims,  when suretyship is  insisted on or heavy sums are demanded by way of bail  or local  bailors alone are presona grata, may well be the  weaker segments of society like the proletariat, the linguistic and  other minorities  and distant  denizens from the far  corners or  our country with its vast diversity. In fact the  grant of bail can be stultified or made impossibly inconvenient and  expensive if  the court  is  powerless  to dispense with  surety or  to receive an Indian bailor across the district borders as good or the sum is so excessive that to procure  a wealthy  surety may  be both  exasperating and expensive. The  problem is  plainly one of the human rights, especially freedom vis-a-vis the lowly. This poignant import of the  problem persuaded  the Chamber  Judge to  invite the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Citizens for Democracy to assist  the Court in decoding the Code and its provisions regarding  bail.   The  Kerala   State  Bar  Federation  was permitted to intervene and counsel for the parties also made submissions. We  record our appreciation of the amici curiae for their  services and proceed to discuss the triple issues formulated above.       There is already a direction for grant of bail by this Court in  favour of the petitioner and so the merits of that matter do  not have  to be  examined now.  It  is  a  sombre reflection that  many little  Indians are  forced into  long cellular servitude  for little offences because trials never conclude and  bailors are beyond their meagre means. The new awareness about human rights imparts to what might appear to be a  small concern  relating to small men a deeper meaning. That is  why we  have decided to examine the question from a wider perspective bearing in mind prisoner’s rights in an * Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer. 339 international  setting   and  informing   ourselves  of  the historical origins and contemporary trends in this branch of law.  Social   Justice  is   the  signature   tune  of   our Constitution and  the little  man in  peril  of  losing  his liberty is the consumer of Social Justice.        There  is no  definition of bail in the Code although offences are  classified as  bailable and  non-bailable. The actual Sections  which deal  with bail, as we will presently show,  are  of  blurred  semantics.  We  have  to  interdict judicial arbitrariness  deprivatory of  liberty  and  ensure ’fair procedure’  which has  a  creative  connotation  after Maneka Gandhi. (1)       Before we turn to the provisions of the Code and dwell on the  text of  the Sections  we may  as well remember what Justice Frankfurter said:               "there  is no  surer way to misread a document      than to read it literally."2      Speaking generally, we agree with the annotation of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

expression ’bail’  given in  the American Jurisprudence (2nd Edn. Vol. 8, Art. 2, p. 783):               "The  term ’bail  bond’ and ’recognizance’ are      used inter  changeably in many bail statutes, and quite      generally without  distinction by  the courts,  and are      given a practically identical effect." According to  the American  Jurisprudence, Art.  6, p.  785, there is power in the court to release the defendant without bail or on his own recognizance. Likewise, the definition of bail  as   given  in   Webster’s  Third   New  International Dictionary:              "The process by which a person is released from      custody." The concept  of bail  has a  long history briefly set out in the publication on ’Programme in Criminal Justice Reform’:               "The  concept of  bail has  a long history and      deep roots  in English  and American  law. In  medieval      England, the  custom grew  out  of  the  need  to  free      untried prisoners  from disease-ridden jails while they      were  waiting  for  the  delayed  trials  conducted  by      travelling  justices.   Prisoners   were   bailed,   or      ’delivered, to reputable third parties of (l) [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621 [1978] 1 S C.C. 248. (2) Massachusetts  B. and Insurance Co. v. U S, 352 U.S. 128 138. 340           their own choosing who accepted responsibility for      assuring their  appearance at trial. If the accused did      not appeal, his bailor would stand trial in his place.               Eventually it became the practice for property      owners who  accepted responsibility for accused persons      to forfeit  money when  their charges  failed to appear      for trial.  From  this  grew  the  modern  practice  of      posting a  money bond through a commercial bondsman who      receives a  cash premium  for his  service, and usually      demands some  col lateral as well. In the event of non-      appearance the  bond is forfeited, after a grace period      of a  number of  days during  which  the  bondsman  may      produce the accused h court."(1)       It sounds like a culture of bonded labour, and yet are we to  cling to  it ! of course, in the United States, since then, the  bondsman emerged  as a  commercial adjunct to the processes of  criminal justice,  which, in turn, bred abuses and led to reform movements like the Manhattan Bail Project. This research  project spurred the National Bail Conference, held in  1964, which  in its crucial chain reaction provided the major  impetus to a reform of bail law across the United States. The  seminal statutory outcome of this trend was the enactment of  the Bail Reform Act of 1966 signed into law by President Lyndon  B. Johnson.  It is  noteworthy that  Chief Justice Earl  Warren, Attorney  General Robert  Kennedy  and other legal  luminaries shared the view that bail reform was necessary. Indeed,  this legislative  scenario has  a lesson for India  where a  much later  Criminal Procedure Code 1973 has  largely  left  untouched  ancient  provisions  on  this subject, incongruous with the Preamble to the Constitution.        An  aside. Hopefully,  one  wishes  that  socio-legal research projects  in India  were  started  to  examine  our current bail  system. Are researchers and jurists speechless on such  issues because  pundits regard  these  small  men’s causes not worthwhile ? Is the art of academic monitoring of legislative performance irrelevant for India ?        The  American Act of 1966 has stipulated, inter alia, that release  should be  granted in  non-capital cases where there is  reasonable  assurance  that  the  individual  will

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

reappear when required; that the Courts should make use of a variety of  release options  depending on the circumstances; that information should be developed about the individual on which  intelligent  selection,  of  alternatives  should  be based. (1) Vera Institute of Justice Ten-year Error 1961-71 r. 20. 341        The  Manhattan Bail  Project, conducted  by the  Vera Foundation   and the Institute of Judicial Administration at New York  University School  of Law, found that about sixty- five percent  of all  felony defendants interviewed could be recommended for  release without  bail. Of  2.195 defendants released in  this way less than one percent failed to appear when required.  In short,  risk of  financial  loss  is  all insubstantial deterrent  to flight  for a  large  number  of defendants whose  ties with  the community are sufficient to bring them to court.        The  consequences of  pre-trial detention  are grave. Defendants  presumed   innocent   are   subjected   to   the psychological  and   physical  deprivations  of  jail  life, usually under  more onerous  conditions than  are imposed on convicted defendants.  The jailed defendant loses his job is he has  one  and  is  prevented  from  contributing  to  the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the burden of his detention  frequently  falls  heavily  on  the  innocent members of his family.      It is interesting that American criminological thinking and research  had legislative  response and the Bail Reforms Act, 1966  came into  being. The  then President,  Lyndon B. Johnson made certain observations at the signing ceremony:                  "Today,   we  join  to  recognize  a  major      development in  our system  of  criminal  justice:  the      reform of the bail system.        This  system has endued-archaic, unjust and virtually unexamined-since the Judiciary Act of 1789.        The  principal purpose  of bail  is to insure that an accused person   will  return for  trial if  he is  released after arrest.       How is that purpose met under the present system ? The defendant With  means can  afford to pay bail. He can afford to buy  his freedom. But the poorer defendant cannot pay the price He  languishes in  jail weeks, months and perhaps even years before trial.      He does not stay in jail because he is guilty.       He does not stay in jail because any sentence has been passed.       He does not stay in jail because he is any More likely to flee before trial.  He  stays  in  jail  for  one  reason  only-because  he  is poor...."                                             (emphasis added) 342        Coming  to studies  made in  India  by  knowledgeable Committees we find the same connotation of bail as including release on  one’s own  bond being treated as implicit in the provisions of  the Code  of Criminal  Procedure. The Gujarat Committee from  which we  quote extensively, dealt with this matter in depth:               "The bail system, as we see it administered in      the criminal courts to-day, is extremely unsatisfactory      and needs  drastic change.  In the  first place  it  is      virtually  in   possible  to  translate  risk  of  non-      appearance by  the accused  into precise monetary terms      and even  its basic premise that risk of financial loss      is necessary  to prevent the accused from fleeing is of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    doubtful validity.  There  are  several  considerations      which deter  an accused  from running away from justice      and risk of financial loss is only one of them and that      too not a major one. The experience of enlightened Bail      Projects in  the United  States such  as Manhattan Bail      Project and  D. C. Bail Project shows that even without      monetary bail  it  has  been  possible  to  secure  the      presence of  the accused  at the trial in quite a large      number of  cases.  Moreover,  the  bail  system  causes      discrimination against  the poor  since the  poor would      not be able to furnish bail on account of their poverty      while the wealthier persons otherwise similarly situate      would be  able to secure their freedom because they can      afford to furnish bail. This discrimination arises even      if the  amount of  the bail  fixed by the Magistrate is      not high, for a large majority of those who are brought      before the  Courts in  criminal cases  are so poor that      they would  and it  difficult to furnish bail even in a      small amount."                                             (emphasis added)      The vice of the system is brought out in the Report:              "The evil of the bail system is that either the      poor accused has to fall back on touts and professional      sureties  for   providing  bail   or  suffer  pre-trial      detention. Both  these consequences  are  fraught  with      great hardship  to the  poor.  In  one  case  the  poor      accused  is   fleeced  of   his  moneys  by  touts  and      professional sureties  and sometimes  has even to incur      debts to make payment to them for securing his release;      in the  other he  is deprived  of his  liberty  without      trial  and   conviction  and   this  leads   to   grave      consequences, namely:  (1) though  presumed innocent he      is subjected to 343      the psychological  and physical  deprivations  of  jail      life; (2)  he loses  his job,  if he  has one,  and  is      deprived of  an opportunity  to work to support himself      and his  family with  the result  that  burden  of  his      detention falls  heavily on the innocent members of the      family, (3)  he is  prevented from  contribution to the      preparation  of   his  defence;   and  (4)  the  public      exchequer has  to bear  the cost  of maintaining him in      the jail.(1)       The Encyclopaedia Britannica brings out the same point even in more affluent societies:              "bail, procedure by which a judge or magistrate      sets  at   liberty  one   who  has   been  arrested  or      imprisoned, upon  receipt of  security  to  ensure  the      released  prisoner’s  later  appearance  in  court  for      further proceedings  .. Failure  to consider  financial      ability has generated much controversy in recent years,      for bail  requirements may  discriminate  against  poor      people  and   certain  minority  groups  who  are  thus      deprived of  an equal  opportunity to secure their free      dom  pending   trial.  Some  courts  now  give  special      consideration to  indigent accused persons who, because      of their  community  standing  and  past  history,  are      considered likely to appear in court."(’)               "We  should suggest  that the  Magistrate must      always bear  in  mind  that  monetary  bail  is  not  a      necessary element  of the  Criminal process and even if      risk of  monetary loss  is a  deterrent against fleeing      from justice,  it is  not the  only deterrent and there      are  other  factors  which  are  sufficient  deterrents      against  flight.   The  Magistrate   must  abandon  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

    antiquated concept  under which pre-trial release could      be ordered  only against monetary bail. That concept is      out-dated and  experience has  shown that  it has  done      more harm  than good.  The new insight into the subject      of pre-trial  release which  has now  been developed in      socially advanced countries and particularly the United      State  should   now  inform   the  decisions   of   the      Magistrates in regard to pre-trial release. Every other      feasible method of (1)  Report of  the Legal  Aid Committee  appointee. by  the      Govt. Of  Gujarat 1971,  and headed  by the  then Chief      Justice of the State, Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati p 185. (2)  Encyclopaedia. Britannica,  Vol. I,  P. 736  (15th Edn)      Micro edn. 344      pre-trial release  should be exhausted before resorting      lo monetary  bail. The  practice  which  is  now  being      followed in  the United  States  is  that  the  accused      should ordinarily  be released on order to appear or on      his own  recognizance unless  it is shown that there is      substantial  risk   it  is   appearance  or  there  are      circumstances justifying  imposition of  conditions  on      release .. If a Magistrate is Satisfied after making an      enquiry  into  the  condition  and  background  of  the      accused  that  the  accused  has    his  roots  in  the      community and  is nor  likely to abscond, he can safely      release the  accused on  order to  appear or on his own      recognizance ......"(1)                                             (emphasis added)        A  latter Committee  with Judges, lawyers, members of Parliament  and  other  legal  experts.  came  to  the  same conclusion and  proceeded on  the assumption that release on bail included release on the accused’s own bond:               "  .... We  think that  a  liberal  policy  of      conditional  re  lease  without  monetary  sureties  or      financial   security   and   release   on   one’s   own      recognizance with  punishment  provided  for  violation      will go  a long  way to reform the bail system and help      the weaker  and poorer sections of the community to get      equal justice  under law.  Conditional release may take      the form  of entrusting  the accused  to the  care  his      relatives or releasing him on supervision. The court or      the  authority  granting  bail  may  have  to  use  the      discretion judiciously. When the accused is too poor to      find sureties,  there will  be no point in insisting on      his furnishing  bail with  sureties, as  it  will  only      compel  him  to  be  in  custody  with  the  consequent      handicaps in making his defence."(2)       Thus, the legal literature, Indian and Anglo-American, on bail  jurisprudence lends  countenance to  the contention that bait.  loosely used,  is comprehensive  enough to cover release on ones own bond with or without sureties.        We have explained later that the power of the Supreme Court to  enlarge a  person during the pendency of a Special Leave Petition  or of  an appeal  is very  wide, as order 21 Rule 27 of the Supreme Court Rules discloses. In that sense, a consideration of the question (1)  Report of  the Legal  Aid Committee  appointed  by  the      Govt. Of Gujarat 1971. P. 185. (2)  Report of  the Expert Committee on Legal Aid-Processual      Justice to the People, May 1973. 345 as to  whether the High Court or the subordinate courts have powers to  enlarge a person on his own bond without sureties may not  strictly  arise.  Even  so,  the  guidelines  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

prevail with  the Supreme  court when granting suspension of sentence must,  in a broad sense, have relevance to what the Code indicates except where special circumstances call for a different course.  Moreover, the advocates who participated- many of them did-covered the wider area of release under the Code, whether  with or  without sureties, and that is why we consider the relevant provisions of the Code in some detail.        Let  us now  examine whether there is anything in the Provisions of  the Code  which  make  this  meaning  clearly untenable.       A semantic smog overlays the provisions of bail in the Code and  prisoners’ rights, when cast in ambiguous language become precarious.  Where doubts arise the Gandhian talisman becomes a  tool of  interpretation:  "Whenever  you  are  in doubt.... apply  the following  test. Recall the face of the poorest and  the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if  the step you contemplate is going to be of any use of  him." Law,  at the  service of  life,  must  respond interpretatively to raw realities and make for liberties.        Primarily  Chapter XXXIII  is the nidus of the law of bail. Sec.  436 of  the Code  speaks of bail but the proviso makes a  contradistinction  between  ’bail’  and  ’own  bond without sureties’.  Even here there is an ambiguity, because even the  proviso comes  in only  if, as  indicated  in  the substantive part,  the accused  in  a  bailable  offence  is prepared to  give bail’.  Here,  ’bail’  suggests  ’with  or without sureties’.  And, ’bail  bond’ in  Sec. 436(2) covers own bond.  Sec. 437(2)  blandly speaks of bail but speaks of release on  bail of  persons below  16 years o age, sick or infirm people  and women.  It cannot  be that a small boy or sinking invalid or pardanashin should be refused release and suffer stress  and distress  in prison  unless sureties  are haled into  a far-off  court with  obligation  for  frequent appearance ! ’Bail’ there suggests release, the accent being on  undertaking   to  appear   when  directed,  not  on  the production of  sure- ties.  But  Sec.  437(2)  distinguishes between bail and bond without sureties.        Sec.  445 suggests, especially read with the marginal note that  deposit of  money will  do duty for bond ’with or without sureties. Sec. 441(1) of the Code may appear to be a stumbling block  in the way of the liberal interpretation of bail  as  covering  own  bond  with  and  without  sureties. Superficially viewed,  it uses  the words  ’bail’  and  ’own bond’ as antithetical, if the reading is literal. Incisively 346 understood, Sec.  441(1) provides  for both  the bond of the accused and  the undertaking of the surety being conditioned in the  manner mentioned  in the sub-section. To read ’bail’ as including  only  cases  of  release  with  sureties  will stultify the  sub-section; for  then, an accused released on his  own   bond  without   bail,  i.e.,  surety,  cannot  be conditioned to  attend at  the appointed  place. Sec. 441(2) uses the  word ’bail’  to  include  ’own  bond’  loosely  as meaning one  or the  other or  both. Moreover, an accused in judicial custody,  actual or  potential, may  be released by the court to further the ends of justice and nothing in Sec. 44 1( 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.      The slippery aspect is dispelled when we understand the import of Sec. 389(1) which reads:               389  (1): Pending  any appeal  by a  convicted      person the  Appellate Court  may,  for  reasons  to  be      recorded by  it in writing, order that the execution of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

    the sentence  or order  appealed against  be  suspended      and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released      on bail, or on his own bond. The court  of appeal  may release  a convict on his own bond without sureties.  Surely. it  cannot be that an under-trial is worse of than a convict or that the power of the court to release increases  when the  guilt is established. It is not the court’s  status but the applicant’s guilt status that is germane. That a guilty man may claim judicial liberation pro tempore without  sureties while  an undertrial  cannot is  a reduetio ad absurdam.        Likewise,  the Supreme  Court’s powers  to enalage  a prisoner, as  the wide  words of  order 21  Rule 27 (Supreme Court Rules)  show, contain no limitation based on sureties. Counsel for  the State  agree that  this is  so, which means that  a   murderer,  concurrently   found  to   be  so   may theoretically be  released on  his own  bond without sure- . ties while  a suspect,  presumed to  be innocent, cannot be. Such a  strange anomaly could not be, even though it is true that the  Supreme Court  exercises wider  powers with grater circumspection.        The truth, perhaps, is that  indecisive and imprecise language is  unwittingly used,  not knowing  the draftsman’s golden rule:               "In drafting it is not enough to gain a degree      of precision  which a  person reading in good faith can      understand, but  it is  necessary to attain if possible      to a  degree of precision which a person reading in bad      faith cannot  misunderstand." (Lux Genthum Lex-Then and      Now 1799-1974, p. 7) 347       If sureties are obligatory even for juveniles, females and sickly  accused while  they can be dispensed with, after being found  guilty if  during trial  when the  presence  to instruct lawyers  is more  necessary, an  accused  must  buy release only  with sureties  while at  the appellate  level, suretyship is  expendable, there is unreasonable restriction on  personal   liberty  with  discrimination  writ  on  The, provisions. The  hornet’s nest  of  Part  111  need  not  be provoked it  read ’bail’ to mean that it popularly docs, and lexically and  in American  Jurisprudence is stated to Mean, viz., a generic expression used to describe judicial release from  Custodia.   Bearing  in  mind  the  need  for  liberal interpretation  in   areas  of  social  justice,  individual freedom and  indigent’s rights,  we hold  that  bail  covers both-release on  one’s own  bond, with  or without sureties. When sureties  should be  demanded and  what sum  should  be insisted on are dependent on variables.        Even so, poor men-Indians in monetary terms indigents young  persons   infirm  individual   and  women   are  weak categories and courts should be liberal in releasing them on their own  recognisances put  whatever reasonable  condition you may.        It  Shocks one   conscience  to ask  a mason like the petitioner  to   Furnish  sureties  for  Rs.  100,000/-  The magistrate must  be given the benefit of doubt for not fully appreciating that  our Constitution.  enacted   by  ’We  the People of  India’’ is meant for the  butcher , the baker and the candle  - stick maker - shall we add , the bonded labour and pavement dweller.        To  add insult to injury, the magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district. (We assume the allegation in the petition). What is   a Malayalee, Kannadiga, Tamilian or Andhra to  do if  arrested for  alleged misappropriation  or them or   criminal  trespass in  Bastar ,  Port Blair  ,Port

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

Blair . Pahalgaam of Chandni  Chowk? He cannot have sureties owning properties  in these  distant places. He may not know any one  there and  might have come in a batch or to  seek a job or  in a morcha . Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved  buy such  provincial  allergies.  What  law prescribes  sureties   from   outside   or   non-   regional linguistic, some  times legalistic.  applications? What  law prescribes  the   geographical  discrimination  implicit  in asking for  sureties from  the court district? This tendency takes  many   forms,  sometimes,   geographic  ,   sometimes linguistic, some  times  legalistic.  Art  14  protects  all Indians qua  Indians, within the territory of India. Art 350 sanctions  representation  to  any  authority.  including  a court, for redress of grievances in any language used in the Union of  India . Equality before the law implies theat even a vakalat 6-526 SCI/78 348 or affirmation  made ill any State language according to the law in  that  State  must  be  accepted  everywhere  in  the territory of  India save  where a  valid legislation  to the contrary exists.  Otherwise, an  adivasi will  be unfree  in Free  India,   and  likewise  many  other  minorities.  This divagation  has  become  necessary  to  still  the  judicial beginnings, and  to inhibit  the process  of making  Indians aliens in  their own  homeland. Swaraj  is  made  of  united stuff.       We mandate the magistrate to release the petitioner on his own bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. An After word        We  leave it to Parliament to consider whether in our socialist republic,  with social  justice as  its  hallmark, monetary superstition,  not  other  relevant  considerations like family  ties, roots  in the  community,  membership  of stable organizations,  should  prevail  for  bail  bonds  to ensure that  the ’bailee’  does not  flee justice.  The best guarantee of  presence in court is the reach of the law, not the money  tag. A  parting thought. If the indigents are not to be  betrayed by  the law including bail law re-writing of many processual  laws is  in  urgent  desideratum;  and  the judiciary will  do  well  to  remember  that  the  geo-legal frontiers of  the Central  Codes  cannot  be  disfigured  by cartographic dissection in the name of language of province. S.R.                                       Petition allowed. 349