Manish vs State of U.P. and Another

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—In Case Crime No. 388/2007 under Sections 379 and 411, I.P.C. Police Station Sector-39 N.O.I.D.A. district Gautam Budh Nagar, bail was granted by Sessions Judge (on 3.11.2007) and the accused (applicant) was asked to furnish two local sureties for a sum of Rs. 35,000.

The accused applied that he belongs to Auraiya and it is difficult for him to procure two local sureties and he produced two sureties residents of district Bulandshahr, which the Sessions Judge declined to accept by order dated 15.11.2007 without giving any reason.

That is what brings the applicant here u/s 482, Cr. P.C.

Heard Sri Raj Kumar, advocate for the applicant and Sri Mohammad Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

The order of Judge is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as held in the case of Moti Ram and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , where the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that demand of local sureties is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Even if, the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court was not within the knowledge of the learned Judge and was not brought to his notice, the order is manifestly callous and cruel. How will an accused, who knows no one in a district, where he is being prosecuted and belongs to another district, would bring local sureties. The amount of bail bond also seems to be on higher side. This order for demanding local sureties for an amount of Rs. 35,000 each is set aside. The learned Judge will rectify the order accordingly.

With these observations, the application is disposed of.