Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b). In HussainaraKhatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, a three-member bench of Supreme Court holds, [4]. ... If the court is sa sfied on a considera on of the relevant factors that the accused has his es in the community and there is no substan al risk of non-appearance, the accused may, as far as possible, be released on his personal bond. Of course, if facts are brought to the no ce of the court which go to show that having regard to the condi on and background of the accused his previous record and the nature and circumstances of the offence, there may be a substan al risk of his non-appearance at the trial, as for example, where the accused is a notorious bad character or a confirmed criminal or the offence is serious (these examples are only by way of illustra on), the court may not release the accused on his personal bond and may insist on bail with sure es....

14. Judicial precedents on s. 445 CrPC:

(a). In Rajballam Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Patna 375, Patna High Court observed:-
"[2]. In this par cular case and in others the District Magistrate has demanded a cash deposit as a condi on to the release of the accused. That is not what the law contemplates or authorises."

(b). In R. R. Chari v. Emperor, 1948 AIR(All) 238, Allahabad High Court observed, [4]. The language of S. 499, Criminal P.C. makes it perfectly clear that what that sec on contemplates is the furnishing of a personal bond by the accused person and a bond by one or more sufficient sure es. The accused as well as the sure es have, therefore, to execute only bonds which are sufficient in the mind of the amount which he might have fixed. This is also the view taken by the Patna High Court in 1943 AIR(Pat) 375 and I respecSully agree with it. Sec on 513 provides for a concession to an accused person who is unable to produce sure es.

(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.

(p). In Sagayam @ Devasagayam v. State, 2017(3) MLJ (Cri) 134, Madras High Court observed, [40]. Under the Code, there is provision for offering Cash surety (See Sec on 445Cr.P.C.). Even in fixing the cash surety, the amount should not be excessive. (See Sec on 440(1) Cr.P.C.). In the first instance, Court cannot demand Cash surety from the accused. The offer to make cash surety must come from the accused.

(q). In Endua @ Manoj Moharana v. State, 2018(72) Orissa Cri. R.611, Orissa High Court observed, [9]. The discre onary power exercised by the Magistrate or the Court, 8 of 14 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:077618 CRM-M-27097-2023 2023:PHHC:077618 as the case may be, under sec ons 441 Cr.P.C., 1973 and 445 Cr.P.C., is mutually exclusive and not concurrent. On the Court requiring a person to execute a personal bond with sure es or without sure es, it is at the op on of the accused to furnish cash deposit in lieu of execu ng such bond that the Court may make an order under sec on 445 of Cr.P.C., 1973 [10]. The order of bail should not be harsh and oppressive which would indirectly cause denial of bail thus depriving the person's individual liberty. While gran ng bail, insis ng on good behaviour or prompt a'endance, execu ng personal bond, further to safeguard his good behaviour and personal a'endance may be supported by insis ng upon addi onal sure es as the Court deems fit but insis ng upon cash security is incorrect and indirectly results in denial of bail. The en re chapter of Cr.P.C. which deals with the provisions rela ng to bail nowhere says that when a person is released on bail, the Court can also insist upon him to give cash security. The power has to be exercised in a proper and judicious manner and not in an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical manner and the discre on exercised shall appear to be just and reasonable one. It is the duty of the Court to see that any order to be passed or condi ons to be imposed while gran ng bail shall always be in the interest of both the accused and the State.