Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(k). In Shokhista v. State, 2005 LawSuit (Del) 1316, Delhi High Court observed, [5]. ...The accused is a foreign na onal and is not able to furnish a local surety. The same does not debar her from being admi'ed to bail. The provision of local surety is nowhere men oned in the Code of Criminal Procedure and surety can be from any part of the country or without. In the present case, since the accused is a foreign na onal and is facing inves ga on under Sec ons 4, 5 and 8 of the I. T. P. Act and in view of the fact that the Pe oner is ready and willing to make a deposit in cash in lieu of the surety in addi on to a personal bond, I am of the opinion that the ends of jus ce would be met in permiVng her to do so. Consequently, I admit the Pe oner to bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a cash deposit of the like amount in lieu of the surety to the sa sfac on of the Trial Court. The Pe oner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial court and shall deposit her pass-port with the trial court.

(l). In Srinjay Kumar Singh v. State of Nagaland, 2007(32) R.C.R.(Criminal) 516, Kohima Bench of Gauha High Court observed, [4]. AQer hearing the counsel for the par es at length and upon perusal of the bail order dated 28.2.07, I am of the considered opinion that the rider to furnish surety from a permanent resident of Dimapur having immovable proper es is too harsh as the accused is not a resident of Dimapur and it is not possible for him to obtain such a surety being a resident of Chi'aranjan in the District of Burdwan, West Bengal and also the rider to furnish local surety is tended to defeat the very order of bail.

(a). The object of requiring an accused to give security for his appearance in Court is not to secure the payment of money to the State. The principal purpose of bail is to secure that the accused person will return for trial if he is released aQer arrest;

this considera on is not lost sight of in the provisions of sec on 445 of the Code. [Charles Shobhraj v. State, 1996 (63) DLT 91, Para 6 & 7].

(b). The rider to furnish local surety is tended to defeat the very order of bail. [Srinjay Kumar Singh v. State of Nagaland, 2007(32) R.C.R.(Criminal) 516, Para 4].

(l). The foreign na onal accused who cannot furnish a local surety is not debarred from being admi'ed to bail. [Shokhista v. State, 2005 LawSuit (Del) 1316, Para 5].

(m). It is not the mandate of the Code that the Magistrate should insist on cash security addi onal to personal bond with or without sure es. [Parades Patra v. State of Orissa, 1994 (1) Crimes (HC) 109, Para 10].


                                     10 of 14

                                                              Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:077618



CRM-M-27097-2023                                                                 2023:PHHC:077618