Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 428 of 1968, decided on 24th July 1968.
S. 76‑Bailable warrant of arrest‑Satisfaction about sureties‑Warrant containing endorsement : "local sureties to be accepted to satisfaction of S. D. P. O."‑Such endorsement, held, would deprive officer, executing warrant, of power to grant bail and hence deleted by High Court.
S. 76‑Bailable warrant of arrest‑Bail amount‑Should be fixed with due regard to circumstances, including gravity of offence‑Requiring three sureties of R.s. 15,000 each for bail of person charged under S. 186, P. P. C.‑Held, not only excessive but also oppressive --Bail amount, in circumstances, reduced to Rs. 50.
Md. Ansar Ali for Petitioners.
A. T. M. Masud, Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the State.
Upon receipt of a report in writing from Tahshildar, Naogaon, alleging that these two petitioners, who are father and son, "uttered ugly words to me and my collecting staff' and they are trying to take illegal action against us which would create troubles on my life in future if the culprits be not brought to book", the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate of Naogaon passed the following order :‑
"12‑6‑68. Seen report of Tdr. Naogaon. Issue W/A with bail of Rs. 15,000 each with three local sureties of the like amount each I/D to hajot under section 186, P. P. C. The local sureties to be accepted to the satisfaction of S. D. P. O. Put up with other cases in this connection. To 22‑7‑68."
2. In this Rule the Deputy Commissioner, that is, the District Magistrate of Rajshahi has been called upon to show cause why the amount of bail should not be reduced or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
Mr. A. Aziz has appeared for the petitioners and the Deputy Legal Remembrancer has appeared for the State.
3. Mr. A. Aziz contends that the amount of bail specified in the order of the learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate has been much too excessive, being a total of Rs. 45,000 for each of the petitioners. He complains that the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate did not make a proper and judicial exercise of the discretion vested in him in the matter of specifying the amount in which the bonds were required to be executed. In this connection he has referred to section 76, Cr. P. C. which runs as follows :‑
"(1) Any Court issuing a warrant for the arrest of any person may in its discretion direct by endorsement on the warrant that, if such person executes a bond with sufficient sureties for his attendance before the Court at specified time and thereafter until otherwise directed by the Court, the officer to whom the warrant is directed shall take such security and shall release such person from custody.
(2) The endorsement shall state‑‑
(a) the number of sureties ;
(b) the amount in which they and the person for whose arrest the warrant is issued, are to be respectively bound ; and
(c) the time at which he is to attend before the Court.
(3) Whenever security is taken under this section the officer to whom the warrant is directed shall forward the bond to the Court."
It will be evident from the provisions of section 76 that the bond is to be taken in order just to ensure attendance before the Court of the person concerned at a specified time and thereafter until otherwise directed and that the warrant should be sufficient for the purpose. The warrant is again to be directed to an officer who shall take such securities and shall release the accused from custody. The warrant shall contain the number of sureties the amount in which they and the person concerned are to be bound and the time at which that person is to attend before the Court.
4. It appears that the learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate is aware of the requirements of section 76 as to the endorsements to be made. But he has gone off the rail by directing that the sureties are to be accepted to the satisfaction of the S. D. P. O. If the warrants were directed to the S. D. P. O. there would be no question of providing in the order that sureties were to be tested by the S. D. P. O., and if it was to be directed to some other officer the requirement of the sureties being tested by the S D. P. O. before acceptance of the bond would tantamount to a direction to take and keep the petitioners in custody for sometime before the sureties could be conveniently tested at 1 isure by the S. D. P. O. The section does not sanction such a procedure. The learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate will also find it useful to refer to the forms of warrants of arrest given in Schedule V appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure. This portion of the learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate's order appears to be wholly unsupportable. It will deprive the officer executing the warrant, who will presumably be an officer much below in rank, of power to grant bail to the petitioners, for which they would be required to be taken to the S. D. P. O.
5. Mr. A. Aziz further points out that an offence under section 186, P. P. C. is not only a bailable offence, but that in the first instance a summons is ordinarily to issue against an accused complained against under this section. He further points out that the maximum punishment provided under this section is imprisonment of either description for three months only or of fine of Rs. 500 or both. It cannot be disputed that bail amounts are to be fixed with due regard to circumstances including the gravity of the offence. The order of the learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate requiring three sureties of Rs. 15,000 each, for each of the petitioners, appears to me not only to be excessive but also oppressive. Regard being had to the circumstances and the nature of the offence complained of, I am of the view that the order of the learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate in regard to the amount of bail should be considerably reduced.
6. The rule is accordingly made absolute. The portion of the order relating to acceptance of the sureties to the satisfaction of the S. D. P. O. is deleted, and in place of the figure Rs. 15,000 the figure Rs. 50 is substituted.
Let the records be sent down at once.
Rule made absolute.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer