S.K.TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the petitioners.
(2.) THE delay is condoned.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners i.e. his clients are registered sureties and are engaged in the business of standing as sureties for accused person in the district concerned. It looks strange that in this State of West Bengal the sureties have become institutionalised and only a person who is so recognized, can stand surety for an accused. If an accused comes from a place out of the State with a solvent surety from his place, the surety bond of such outside person shall not be accepted by the Courts. I do not know as to how this unhealthy practice came into vogue. The apex Court in case of Moti Ram v. State of M.P., AIR 1978 SC 1594 observed thus : - "It was not within the power of the Court to reject a surety because he or his estate was situate in a different district or State. There was no law prescribing the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the Court district. So the demand by the Magistrate, of sureties from his own district, was discriminatory and illegal". In case of Vijai Singh v. Murarilal, (1979) 4 SCC 758 it was observed thus : - "...... it is common phenomenon in our country that bail was too often become a boguy and an instrument of unjust incarceration. There are some Magistrates who are never satisfied about the solvency of the sureties except when the property of the surety is within their jurisdiction and Revenue Officers have attested their worth. This harrasses the poor and loads to corruption as pointed out by this Court in Moti Ram's case (supra)". Professional sureties should be condemned rather than encouraged. If a person stands surety on payment of consideration, it cannot be termed legal. Hence this practice of recognising sureties deserves to be stopped forthwith. I, therefore, direct the henceforth no Court shall insist upon local sureties. However the petition is disposed of with a direction to Court below that if the petitioners produce the accused persons (Md. Sajid Sakil Ahmed and Md. Wazed) on the next date of hearing, no further action shall be taken against the petitioners.;