Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajni Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2019
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 38949/2019
(Rajni Jatav Vs. State of M.P.)
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 18/9/2019
Shri Anil Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Purushottam Pandey, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this petition, under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking modification of the condition mentioned in order dated 8/8/2019 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena releasing the applicant on regular bail, relating to furnishing of bail bonds.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that bail has been granted to the petitioner by the Court below subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount. However, due to financial hardships and non availability of surety, the petitioner is unable to satisfy the said conditions of bail. Accordingly, modification of the impugned order is sought.
Per contra, the prayer is opposed by learned Public THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38949/2019 (Rajni Jatav Vs. State of M.P.) (2) Prosecutor contending that the petitioner has directly approached this Court instead of approaching the Sessions Court which had granted bail.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties. It is trite that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As such, the objection raised by learned Public Prosecutor cannot be countenanced.
The Apex Court in the case of Moti Ram and others Vs. State of M.P. ((1978)4 SCC 47) has held as under:-
"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 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.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38949/2019 (Rajni Jatav Vs. State of M.P.) (3) 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 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.
(Emphasis supplied) In the above case it has also been held that imposition of harsh conditions in bail orders is against law and that the bail condition should not be imposed in such a way that a rich THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38949/2019 (Rajni Jatav Vs. State of M.P.) (4) man can go out of the jail on bail while a man who has no money, no property, who is unable to produce such surety shall suffer jail.
In the present case, the petitioner is a poor lady who is suffering incarceration despite having been released on bail, being unable to arrange for sureties.
In such a scenario, to meet the ends of justice, the condition of furnishing surety, as stipulated in the order sought to be modified, is dispensed with, while the rest of the order is kept intact.
The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAV A 2019.09.19 17:29:03 +05'30'