M.M.S.BEDI,J - (1.) THE petitioner is accused of having assembled on 2.1.2008 along with others for the purpose of committing dacoity. He was ordered to released on bail vide order dated 20.3.2008 by the Sessions Judge, Jhajjar on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount. It was further observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar that since the petitioner is a resident of District Saharnpur, therefore, in order to ensure his presence during trial, he would deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash while submitting the personal bond. Likewise, the surety was also required to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith the surety bond before the trial Court.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is unreasonable if seen in context to the law laid by the Supreme Court in Moti Ram and others v. State of M.P., AIR 1978 SC 1594, where an order rejecting the surety on account of he or his surety being situated in a different district was held to be discriminatory and illegal. In the said case the Supreme Court had authorized the Magistrate to release the accused on his own bond of Rs. 1000/-. I have considered the validity of the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. No doubt the court granting bail to an accused is entitled to impose a condition in accordance with the provisions of section 437(3) Cr.P.C. Similar conditions can be imposed in the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. The reasonableness of the condition imposed by the Court for the release of an accused on bail has to be seen in context to the conditions, which can be imposed as per the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Merely because the petitioner happens to be a resident of UP, he cannot be compelled to deposit the amount equivalent to the bail bond/surety bond. The purpose of furnishing surety bond would be defeated in case he has to deposit the amount equivalent ot the surety bond. The practice adopted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar seems to be contrary to the law laid in Moti Ram's case (supra), which prohibits geographical discrimination in the matter of rejecting the surety bonds on the ground that the estate of the surety is situated in a different district.
(3.) IN view of the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram's case (supra), the condition imposed upon the petitioner is unreasonable. In this context the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 30 and 31 are reproduced hereunder :- "Even so, poor men - Indians are, in monetary terms, indigents - young persons, infirm individuals and women are weak categories and courts should be liberal in releasing them on their own recognisances - put whatever reasonable conditions you may. It shocks one's conscience to ask a mason like the petitioner, to furnish sureties for Rs. 10,000. The magistrate must be given the benefit of doubt for not fully appreciating that our Constitution, enacted by "We, the people of India, is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker - shall we add, the bonded labour and pavement dweller." ;