Counsel appearance in summons-case and reasonable surety conditions were treated as sufficient compliance with criminal procedure.

In a summons-case for a fine-only offence, where the summons permits appearance either in person or through a pleader, representation by an advocate can satisfy the requirement of appearance and personal attendance is not always necessary. The text also notes that bail conditions must remain reasonable: surety should be assessed on sufficiency in light of the facts, offence, and supporting material, rather than by rigid insistence on a Government servant surety or additional property documents. In the described matter, the offered sureties and supporting records were treated as adequate, and the stricter conditions were found unjustified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an accused summoned in a summons-case for a fine-only offence could comply with the summons through an advocate instead of personal appearance; (ii) whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing the sureties and insisting on a Government servant surety and additional documents.

Issue (i): Whether an accused summoned in a summons-case for a fine-only offence could comply with the summons through an advocate instead of personal appearance.

Analysis: The summons required appearance either in person or through a pleader. In a summons-case, process is issued for attendance of the accused, but where the summons itself permits appearance through counsel and the offence is not grave, representation by an advocate satisfies the requirement of appearance. The Court also noted that in cases punishable with fine only, coercive process is not ordinarily necessary at the initial stage and the proceedings may be conducted consistently with the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion: The accused was not required to be personally present if represented by counsel, and such representation amounted to compliance with the summons.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing the sureties and insisting on a Government servant surety and additional documents.

Analysis: The Court held that the sufficiency of surety must be judged with reference to the facts of the case, the nature of the offence, and the need to avoid excessive conditions. Bail in bailable matters is a right, and the amount of bond should not be excessive. The record showed that adequate material was offered in support of the sureties, including an FDR and documents establishing identity, employment, residence, and financial capacity. In these circumstances, insisting upon a Government surety and further property or vehicle documents had no legal justification.

Conclusion: The refusal to accept the offered sureties and the insistence on a Government servant surety were unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that the impugned approach to personal appearance and surety was disapproved, and the Magistrate was directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a summons expressly permits appearance in person or through a pleader, representation by counsel satisfies the summons in a summons-case; and bail conditions must be reasonable, with surety assessed on sufficiency rather than rigid insistence on a particular status.

---