ISTKAR versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 854 · Decided: 11-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
   [2022] 8 S.C.R. 854
854
ISTKAR
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.2034 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 11, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter VIII – s.107,
117 – Bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was furnished by the
appellant in terms of s.107 for keeping the peace in the wake of
upcoming panchayat elections – Forfeited – Revision petition
filed by the appellant was dismissed – Writ petition filed by
appellant, High Court held that there was no illegality in the
orders passed – On appeal, held: The scope and nature of s.107
is preventive and not punitive as it aims at ensuring that there be
no breach of peace and that the public tranquillity be not
disturbed by any wrongful or illegal act – Purpose of provisions
of Chapter VIII cannot be altered from preventive to punitive by
imposing heavy quantum of security/bond, which a person might
be unable to pay – In the present case, admittedly, on the alleged
date of violation of the terms of bond, the election process had
already been completed – Assuming that apart from his alleged
actions of encroaching public property and obstructing the
officials (u/s.186, IPC), the actions of appellant indeed led to
breach of peace, the question is as to whether he was to be
penalised with the entire amount reflected in the bond –
Magistrate while ordering security u/s.117 has to take into
consideration the status and position of the person to decide the
quantum of security/bond – Appellant is a daily-wage earner –
Even for the offence u/s.186 IPC, the prescribed punishment is
of imprisonment extending to three months or with fine upto Rs.
500/- or both – Forfeiture of Rs.5,00,000/- on ground of
obstructing a public servant while on duty, that too u/s.107 , is
exceptionally high and beyond raison d’être of s.107 as also
Chapter VIII – Bond amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is excessive even
within the contours of proviso (b) to s.117 itself, regardless of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
855
the facts of the case – On facts, amount to be deposited by the
appellant reduced to Rs. 5,000/- – Penal Code, 1860 – s.186.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter VIII – ss.106-
124 – Held: Provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code are merely
preventive in nature and are not to be used as a vehicle for
punishment.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter VIII –
Furnishing of security and/or executing a bond under – Object
of – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.466 – Power of
Court under – Discussed.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The proceedings have been adopted against
the appellant in terms of the provisions contained in Chapter
VIII of CrPC. This Chapter is essentially for taking security
from a particular person for keeping peace or for maintaining
good behaviour. The provisions of this Chapter VIII are
preventive in their scope; and their aim and objective is to
provide for such measures which would prevent disturbance
in public tranquillity or breach of peace. Chapter VIII of CrPC
ranges from Section 106 to Section 124. Section 106 provides
for securing society from people who are a danger to the public
by reason of commission of offence i.e., it applies to convicted
offenders. Further, Section 107 to 110 are for cases other than
those mentioned in Section 106. Of these, Section 107 is for
taking security generally for keeping the peace; Section 108
is for security for good behaviour from persons disseminating
seditions matters; Section 109 is for security for good
behaviour from suspected persons; and Section 110 is for
security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. Sections
111 to 124 lay down the procedure to be followed in these cases.
The procedure when a bond is forfeited, is essentially provided
in Section 446 CrPC. [Paras 6, 6.1][863-A-E]
1.2 The scope and nature of Section 107 CrPC is
preventive and not punitive. It aims at ensuring that there be
no breach of peace and that the public tranquillity be not
ISTKAR v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
disturbed by any wrongful or illegal act. The action being
preventive in nature is not based on any overt act but is
intended to forestall the potential danger to serve the interests
of public at large. This provision is in aid of orderly society
and seeks to avert any conduct subversive of the peace and
public tranquillity. The provision aut
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.