- (1.) THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS :- The petitioners, who are six in number and have been described above, are being proceeded against under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of Shri Amarjit Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. On 28th August, 1957, the learned Magistrate recorded an order for the issue of a notice under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code. In the same order it was given that they should be released if they execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each as, they have not been able to furnish the bound, they are still in Jail.
(2.) The proceedings are Forwarded for Revision on the following grounds :- Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioners. They show that they are poor people, quite unable to furnish bonds in such heavy sums. One of them Harbhajan Singh is only a cycle repairer. Similarly Opar Singh is also a cycle repairer and Harbans Singh is a petty hawker. The monthly income of Raja Singh is said to be Rs. 60 p.m. and that of Shahbe Singh is Rs. 100 p.m. From persons of such income and status, bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 are manifestly execessive and unreasonable. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for The State was asked to justify the fixing of the amount at such a high figure. He could only say that the exigencies of the situation demanded that the amount should be placed at that figure. By exigencies of the situation he meant that an agitation of a political nature was going on at that time in Ludhiana town and that if the amount had been placed at a lesser figure, then the situation could not be met with in a satisfactory manner. This explanation, given by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, when read between the lines, clearly shows that the amount was fixed at a high figure only with a view to see that the persons concerned are not able to furnish the required bonds and in default of it they are kept behind the bars. Now this is exactly as thing that a Magistrate should not do. The amount of the bond should be fixed by him not with a view to see that the required bond is not furnished but the amount should be compatible with their resources and position in life.
(3.) Even if I disregard the explanation given by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the order in question speaks for itself and show that the only intention behind it was to keep the persons concerned in Jail. The usual amounts, for which bonds are generally demanded, run between Rs. 1000 and Rs. 5000. No indication whatsoever has been given in the order itself as to why the amount was fixed at a high figure of Rs. 50.000 instead I am of the opinion, therefore, that the intention behind the order was to see that the required bond is not furnished. This is clearly a misuse of the discretion vested in the learned Magistrate, and for this reason the order in question is bad and is liable to be revised.;