RISHIKUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
Kasliwal, J. -
(1.)This is an application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order of learned Add!. Sessions Judge No. Bharatpur, dated January 30, 1984, whereby the accused applicants have been asked to furnish at least one surety out of the two residing within the jurisdiction of the Court. All the accused-applicants are residents of Etta (UP).
(2.)It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that at the time of granting bail this fact was taken into consideration that the petitioners were residents of Etta (UP) and on that account they were directed to be released on bail for heavy amounts of Rs. 20,000/personal bond with two sureties of Rs, 10,000/each. It is submitted that the petitioners have furnished sureties of Etta duly verified by the competent authority. It is submitted that in case the applicants are residents of a State outside the State of Rajasthan, then they should be permitted to furnish bail bonds of persons belonging to the place of their residence. Reliance is placed on Motiram and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 Krishna Iyer J. in the above case observed as under: To add insult to injury, the Magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district, (we assume the allegation in the petition). What is a MalayaJee, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrest for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Buster, Port Blair, Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk? We cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. We may not know anyone there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a marcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies. What Law prescribes sureties- from outside or non-regional language applications? What Law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district? This tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic, sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalistic. Article 4 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Art. 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a court, for redress of grievances in any Language used in the Union of India, equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in any State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India save where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfree in Free India, and likewise many other minorities. This divagation has become necessary to still the judiciai beginnings, and to inhibit the process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is made of united stuff.
(3.)Learned Public Prosecutor contended that in case the surety bonds will not be taken of persons belonging to the State of Rajasthan, then there would be great difficulty in realising he amount from the sureties in case the accused persons abscond in the case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.