J. Babul Hussain Sahib vs The Inspector of Police

K. Kalyanasundaram, J.—This petition is filed to modify the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy, in Cr.M.P.No.2810 of 2014, dated 19.05.2014.

The petitioner was arrested on 19.03.2014 by the respondent for the alleged offences under sections 465, 468, 471 of IPC r/w. section 12(1)(a) of Passport Act.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy, on 19.05.2014 under section 167 of Cr.P.C, for not filing of the charge sheet by the prosecution within 60 days and on the condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten thousand only] with two sureties each for a like sum, in which one of the sureties was blood relative of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a Bangladesh Nationalist and his close relatives are not available in India.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in- spite of the fact that the petitioner was granted bail on 19.05.2014, he did not comply with the condition, due to the only reason that his blood relatives are not available in India. The learned counsel also submitted that the condition is onerous and requires modification of this court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted a judgment reported in Mohammed Sabigul Islam Bisvas Vs. Inspector of Police, Sri Rangam Police Station, . In that case, this court had held as follows:-

The petitioner relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Keshab Narayan Banerjee and Another Vs. The State of Bihar, wherein it is held that a condition on a person to furnish a security of Rupee One Lakh in cash or in fixed deposit of any nationalised bank with two sureties residing in the State of Bihar each for a like sum, appears to be excessively onerous. The Apex Court held that it would virtually amount to denial of bail itself. Hence, the Apex Court enlarged the person on bail on modified condition and further held that the learned Special Judge should not insist that the appellants should produce sureties who are residing in Bihar only. In the another decision in Moti Ram and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , the Apex Court has held that the law does not prescribe sureties from outside and the law does not prescribe geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the Court District. In that case, the mason was asked to furnish two sureties each Rs.10,000/- as surety. The Supreme Court held that it would amount to denial of bail. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer who has written the judgment for the Bench observed as follows:-

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." lampooned Anatole France. The reality of this caricature of equal justice under the law, whereby the poor are priced out of their liberty in the justice market, is the grievance of the petitioner. His criminal appeal pends in this Court and he has obtained an order for bail in his favour ''to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate". The direction of this court did not spell out the details of the bail, and so, the magistrate ordered that a surety in a sum of Rs.10,000 be produced which, in actual impact, was a double denial of the bail benefit. For one thing the miserable mason, the petitioner before us, could not afford to procure that huge sum or manage a surety of sufficient prosperity. Affluents do not befriend indigents. For another, the magistrate made an odd order refusing to accept the suretyship of the petitioner''s brother because he and his assets were in another district.

If mason and millionaire were treated alike, egregious ineaglity is an inevitability. Likewise, geographic allergy at the judicial level makes mockery of equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. India is one and not a conglomeration of districts, untouchably apart.

This court, after relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, has modified the condition directing the accused to produce two sureties of the local residents of Trichy city.

In view of the above fact that the petitioner is the Bangladesh Nationalist and he was released on bail on 19.05.2014, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy, passed in Cr.M.P.No.2810 of 2014, dated 19.05.2014 is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall produce two sureties each for a sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty five thousand only] from the local residents of Trichy city. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is ordered.