1977 (9) TMI 126 - SC - Indian Laws

Bail Granted to Petitioner Post-State Appeal, Conditions Set for Compliance

The petitioner sought bail after surrendering following the State's appeal against acquittal by the High Court. The Court granted bail considering factors ... Bail, not jail - conditions for grant of bail - flight risk and thwarting the course of justice - intimidation of witnesses and repetition of offence - pecuniary surety - non-monetary undertakings as alternative to monetary suretyBail, not jail - conditions for grant of bail - flight risk and thwarting the course of justice - Grant of bail to a petitioner who surrendered after leave was granted to the State to file an appeal against acquittal by the High Court. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the principle that the norm is to grant bail rather than incarceration unless there are circumstances indicating a risk of absconding, evasion, repetition of offence, intimidation of witnesses, or other abuse of the process. The petitioner had been on bail throughout trial, surrendered after leave was granted to the State to appeal, and there was nothing in the record to suggest he had abused court trust or was likely to flee or frustrate the course of justice. His social circumstances, including youth and family responsibilities, did not militate against enlargement on bail. The Court observed that concerns about abscondence or other abuse could be met by appropriate conditions, and therefore directed a reporting condition (fortnightly at the Baren notice station) as a precautionary measure. The Court also noted, by way of observation, that while pecuniary surety has traditional usage, non-monetary undertakings by relations or organisations may in future be socially preferable; notwithstanding that remark, the Court adhered to existing practice in this case and imposed a pecuniary surety requirement.Petitioner released on bail on furnishing personal bond and one surety to the satisfaction of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baren, and subject to fortnightly reporting at the Baren notice station.Final Conclusion: Bail granted subject to bond, one pecuniary surety and reporting condition; court adhered to customary practice while noting that non-monetary undertakings may be a preferable alternative in appropriate cases. Issues Involved: Bail application after acquittal by High Court, considerations for granting bail, nature of offense, petitioner's background and social circumstances, conditions for bail.In the judgment delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J., the petitioner sought bail after surrendering following the State's appeal against acquittal by the High Court.The Court emphasized the general principle that bail should be preferred over jail, except in cases indicating a risk of fleeing from justice, obstructing justice, or engaging in further criminal activities. Factors such as the seriousness of the offense and the petitioner's criminal record are crucial in determining bail. Despite the gravity of the offense, the petitioner had been on bail during the trial and did not misuse the court's trust. His social standing and family responsibilities also supported his plea for bail. To address any concerns of evasion, the Court ordered the petitioner to report to the police station fortnightly. The petitioner was granted bail upon executing a bond with one surety for Rs. 5,000 to the satisfaction of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baren.The Court acknowledged the traditional practice of pecuniary bail but suggested a reevaluation of this system in favor of more socially relevant alternatives, such as undertakings by the petitioner's relatives or affiliated organizations. Despite this suggestion, in the present case, the Court adhered to the monetary surety requirement and directed the provision of one surety for Rs. 5,000. The application for intervention was allowed, and bail was granted to the petitioner.