Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In each of these cases the Sessions Judge required Kali Charan, by his order dated the 16th of July to furnish security in personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with sureties each for Rs. 5,000/-. Thus he had to furnish a further security of a total mount of Rs. 2,40,000/-. He was unable to furnish the required security and therefore filed the other 24 cases on the 18th of July 1951.

10. Of these thirty cases, three, viz., Criminal Misc. No. 1355 of 1951, Criminal Misc. No. 1356 and Criminal Misc. No. 1357 of 1951 did not relate to any illegal detention or to any excessive bail. In fact, these applications related to the three cases of the Farrukhabad district itself in which the accused had already secured order for his release on the furnishing of the necessary security. These cases were instituted merely to get, if necessary, such order of bail which may avail the applicant in all these 30 cases without in any way making it impossible for him to furnish bail and thus to create a situation in which the order for his release on bail be not effective. In view of the opinion I have formed about the validity of the arrest and detention of the application with the other 27 cases I need say no more about these three cases as no action is necessary in these cases.

12. Similar allegations were made in the affidavit filed with the later 24 cases. The State did not file any counter-affidavit in them.

13. Two points are urged for the applicant. One is that his arrest and detention in these 27 cases under the orders of the City Magistrate, Farrukhabad are illegal. The other is that if his detention is not illegal the bail required is of such an excessive amount that it is impossible for the applicant to furnish it and that therefore in order to make the bail order an effective one the amount of bail required should be appreciably reduced, I need not say anything on the second question as I agree with the first contention.