Delhi District Court
A Revision Has Been Filed By The vs State on 8 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR, ASJ02
(CENTRAL)/TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
Crl. Revision no. 24/15
ID No. 02401R0173322015
In the matter of:
Hari Ram S/o Sh. Jawala Prasad
R/o Village Baldukpurva, PS Dhanipur
Distt. Gonda (U.P.)
VERSUS:
The State (NCT of Delhi)
Date of Institution : 01.04.2015
Date of reserving judgment : 08.04.2015
Date of pronouncement : 08.04.2015
JUDGMENT
A revision has been filed by the revisionist Chatti Lal against the impugned order dated 27.03.2015 passed by Sh. Ajay Kumar Malik, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide which, Ld. MM had rejected the surety bond furnished by the revisionist for accused Hari Ram S/o Sh. Jawala Prasad who was granted bail by the Ld. Sessions Judge on furnishing of personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety in the like amount in case FIR no. 95/2015 u/s 379/411 IPC PS Hazrat Nizamuddin (Division:
Railway Station).CR No. 24/15 1/5
2. The revision has been filed on the grounds that revisionist is the real fatherinlaw of the accused, who stood surety for the accused. He furnished his surety bond and annexed the FARD of his agricultural land to support the same. Ld. MM has failed to consider that surety bond means, undertaking given by the surety to produce the accused before the court. Ld. MM has failed to appreciate that revisionist is not in a position to call any other person to be a surety as his family members are living in Gonda, U. P. The revisionist is not a professional surety and having valid control over the accused as accused is his soninlaw and can produce him before the Ld. Trial Court. A request is made that order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Ld. MM rejecting the surety bond, may be set aside.
3. Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently opposed the revision stating that the revision is not maintainable as rejecting of bail bond, is only an interlocutory order as the revisionist has an option u/s 445 Cr.P.C. to request the Ld. Trial Court for depositing the amount of bail instead of producing the surety. A request is made that revision may be dismissed.
4. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Addl. PP for the state and considered the same.
The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a case law CR No. 24/15 2/5 titled as Vivek Sharma Vs. State, 1996 (I) C.C. Cases 278 (H.C.) passed by the then Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jaspal Singh on 25.01.1996 in a criminal revision filed before him.
Ld. Counsel has submitted that in the aforecited case, Ld. MM had got the enquiry conducted from the concerned police station and perused the enquiry report and after considering the same, had rejected the surety bond observing that "surety is sound but, not fit, as he apparently has, no control. Rejected." Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid case, observed in para no. 3 and 4 that:
In para no. 3:
"Unfortunately, while directing the Station House Officer to report about the fitness or sufficiency of the surety, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate completely ignored section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subsection (4) of which enjoins:
(4) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are fit or sufficient, the court may accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency or fitness of the sureties, or, if it considers necessary, may either hold an inquiry itself or cause any enquiry to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to the Court, as to such sufficiency or fitness."
In para no. 4:
"The language of subsection (4) of Section 441 is CR No. 24/15 3/5 neither indecisive nor imprecise and makes it clear that an inquiry envisaged thereunder is a judicial act. The Magistrate has to be personally satisfied on an inquiry conducted by him in his judicial capacity about the "sufficiency or fitness" of the surety produced. The Court can delegate this responsibility to none other than a Magistrate subordinate to it. Unfortunately, this judicial duty was never satisfied and the course adopted by him not only stultified the grant of bail subjecting thereby the petitioner to avoidable psychological and physical deprivations of jail life but also made a mockery of social justice and individual freedom."
Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in the present case Ld. MM had directed the IO/SHO on 26.03.2015 to verify about the surety and directed that report be filed on 27.03.2015. On 27.03.2015 H. Ct. Shakti Singh had made a written request seeking some time to verify the particulars mentioned in the bail bond as it pertained to Gonda, U. P. But, on 27.03.2015 Ld. MM rejected the bail bond without specifying any reason.
5. It seems that rejecting the bail bond without assigning any reason, is improper as discussed by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforecited case and the same is against the provisions mentioned u/s 441 Cr.P.C. In the aforecited case, a revision was filed against rejecting of surety bond by the Ld. MM therefore, the contention raised by Ld. Addl. PP for the state CR No. 24/15 4/5 that revision is not maintainable as rejection of surety bond is only an interlocutory order and the revisionist has an option to request the Ld. Trial Court to pass order u/s 445 Cr.P.C. for depositing of amount of bail instead of producing the surety, is rejected. The impugned order dated 27.03.2015 rejecting the surety bond of the revisionist, is set aside.
Ld. MM is directed to consider the surety bond of the revisionist as per the provisions mentioned in section 441 (4) Cr.P.C. and other relevant provisions mentioned in ChapterXXXIII (PROVISIONS AS TO BAIL AND BONDS) of Cr.P.C., at the earliest.
The revision filed by the revisionist, is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for compliance as per rules.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (CHANDRA SHEKHAR)
th
COURT ON 08 APRIL, 2015 ASJ02 (Central)/THC/Delhi
CR No. 24/15 5/5