http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BALCHAND @ BALIAY

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/09/1977

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 2447            1978 SCR  (1) 535  1977 SCC  (4) 308

ACT: Bail-Interim   bail  pending  the  hearing  of  an   appeal- Guidelines  regarding  grant of-Supreme  Court  Rules  1966, Order XLVII, rule 6, r/w Order XXI rule 6.

HEADNOTE: The petitioner-respondent was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions  Court but released after the judgment of the  High Court.  The petitioner surrendered 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 against acquittal by the High Court and moved an application for bail. Granting the bail, the Court, HELD : The basic rule is 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 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 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 it desperate character  or  an unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place on him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. [536 A-D] OBSERVATION: 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 relations of the petitioner or organisation  to  which he belongs may be  better  and  more socially relevant.

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

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crl.  Misc.  Petition  No. 1424-1425 of 1977. (Application for release on Bail). S.   M. Jain, for the appellant. D.   Mukherjee, V. S. Dave, R. C. Tyagi and S. S.  Khanduja, for the respondent. I. Makwana, for the intervener. The Order of the Court, was delivered by KRISHNA  IYER,  J.  The petitioner  moves  for  bail  having surrendered after leave was granted to the State to file  an appeal against acquittal by the High Court. 536 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 petitioner  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 lie,  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 court; his social circumstances also are not  so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desparate character or  unsocial element 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 to maintain.   The  circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being  granted  bail 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 notice station at Baren once every fortnight. This  petitioner  will be released on 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, Baren.  While the system- of pecuniary bail has a  tradition behind it, the time has come for rethinking on the  subject. It  may well be that in most cases not  monetary  suretyship but  undertaking 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 of one surety for Rs. 5,000/-. Application for intervention allowed. S.R. Bail granted. 537