Bir Singh vs The State of Haryana

Gurnam Singh, J.—Bir Singh petitioner was prosecuted u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He was allowed bail by the trial Magistrate but he did not attend the Court on 22nd April 1976. He remained absconding till 6th April 1977 when he appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and applied for bail. His request for bail was declined by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. He, therefore, presented an application for bail in the Court of Sessions which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered the release of the petitioner on bail provided a cash deposit of Rs. 3000/- is made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, by him or on his behalf. Bir Singh has filed this petition alleging that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not direct him to deposit a cash of Rs. 3000/-, rather he could ask him to furnish surety u/s 499, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

Section 499, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, reads as under:�

499(1) before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police-officer or Court, as the cast may be.

(2) If the case so require, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Sessions or other Court to answer the charge.

(3) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are sufficient, the Court may if it so thinks fit, accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency of the sureties or may make such further inquiry as it deems necessary.

It is clear from the words of the section that it contemplates taking of a personal bond from the accused person and a bond by one or more sureties and does not empower the Court to demand cash security. u/s 513, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, an accused person can deposit a sum of money as the Court may fix, in lieu of executing the required bond, if he wants to do so but the Court has no power to insist on ease deposit to be made by the accused. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is, therefore, illegal and is set aside. It is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.