Jugal Singh and Others vs Emperor

Allanson, J.—This is a rule calling on the District Magistrate of Saran to show cause why the sureties that have offered themselves for the present petitioners should not be accepted. The petitioners, except the petitioner Nadho Singh, were ordered to be bound down u/s 118,. Criminal P.C., and to find two sureties for Rs. 500 each to be of good behaviour for three years. It does not appear from the papers before me on what date this order binding down the petitioners was passed, but I am informed by the learned advocate who appears for the petitioners that he understands that they have been in jail about a year and a half. Two sureties have now come forward. One of them is the petitioner Madho Singh an advocate of this High Court, who practises at Chapra.

He is a cousin of the petitioners. The other is a zamindar in the Saran District who is an uncle of the petitioners. The Sub-divisional Magistrate directed an enquiry into the suitability of these sureties. They have been reported to be men of means. The only objection that has been taken to their fitness is that they live at a distance from the accused persons and will. not be in a position to exercise sufficient control over their movements. On this ground only it is that the sureties have not been accepted. The accused persons are residents of Manjhi, which is about 12 miles from Chapra where one surety usually lives.

The other surety lives about 24 miles from Manjhi. I see that in their applications to be accepted as sureties Babu Nadho Singh says he will often keep the accused persons with him at Chapra and that he also often goes to Manjhi. The other surety offered to keep the accused with him for the period during which they have been bound down.

The question whether the fact that the sureties live at a distance from the persons on whose behalf they are standing surety is a good reason for refusing to accept the sureties as such does not seem to have been decided by this Court. The Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts appear to have taken somewhat different views on this subject. In Queen-Empress v. Rahim Bakhsh [1898] 20 All. 206 the view was expressed that it is reasonable to require that the sureties to be tendered should not be sureties from such a distance as would make it unlikely that they could exercise any control over the man for whom they were willing to stand surety; Magistrates must be guided in each case by the facts of the case. Now the facts of that case were somewhat different from the facts of the present one. One of the sureties knew practically nothing of the man for whom he was going to act as surety. On the other hand the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rayan Khan v. Emperor [1916] 43 Cal. 1024 held that, according to the decisions of that Court, it was not a valid ground for rejection of a surety that he is unable to show that he has sufficient control over the accused.

In my opinion when two relations of accused persons, of sufficient pecuniary means and against whose character nothing is alleged, come forward and offer to stand surety, and at the same time offer to keep the accused persons under control, the sureties should not be rejected because they live at a distance of from 12 to 24 miles from the residence of the accused persons. Being relatives of the accused persons they would for that reason, if for no other, be in a better position to control the accused than outsiders. Be this as it may, the fact that the sureties reside at a distance at which they cannot reasonably be expected to exercise control over the accused becomes of less importance when the sureties are themselves relations and presumably persons of some standing.

I would allow this application and directed that the sureties, be accepted.