MOTI RAM & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 24-08-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
MOTI RAM & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
August 24, 1978 
(V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.) 
335 
Bail jurisprudrence-Enlargement on bail with or without sureties-Scope of 
Ss. 440(1), 441, 445 read withs. 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
-Criteria 10 guide in quantifying the amount of bail and acceptance of surety 
whose t.1tate is situate in a different district or State, explained. 
Pursuant to the dire~ions of the Supreme Court for releasing the petitioner-
a.ppellant "on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate," the 
Magistrate ordered that a surety in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- be produced. When the 
petitioner produced one, the magistrate made an odd order refusing to accept 
the suretyship of the petitioner's brother be.:ause he and his assets were in 
another district. Frustrated by magisterial intransigence the prisoner moved this 
Court again to modify the original order "to the extent that the petitioner be 
released on furnishing surety to the tune of R'i. 2,000 /- or on executing a per-
sonill bond or pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may 
deem fit and proper". Directing the Magistrate to release the petitioner un his 
own bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000 /- the Court, 
l-IELD· : ( 1) Social Justice is the signature tune of our Constitution anu 
A 
B 
c 
D 
the Jittleman in peril of losing his liberty is the consumer of social justice. And E 
the grant of bail can be stultified or made impossibly inconvenient and, expensive 
if the Court is powerless to dispense with surety or to receive an Indian bail.or 
across the district borders as good or the sum is so excessive that to procure 
a wealthy surety may be both exasperaiting and 
expensive. 
The problem is 
plainly one of hum.an rights, especially freedom vis-a-vis, the lowly and necessi-
tates the Supreme Court to interdict judicial arbitrari!l'Css deprivatory of liberty 
and ensure "fair procedure" which has a creative connotation alter 
Maneka 
p 
Gandhi [1978] 2 SCR 621. [338 C-F, 339 A-BJ 
(2) Bail covers release on one's own bond with or without sureties. as the 
legal literature, Indian and Anglo-American on bail jurisprudence ]ends counte-
nance and the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice, individual 
freedom and indigent's rights Jllstifies. 
When sureties should be demanded and 
what sum should be insiBted on are dependent on variables. [344 G, 347 CJ 
G 
(3) A semantic smog overlays the provisions of bail in the Code and priso-
ners' rights, when cast i~ ambiguous language become precarious. [345 C] 
(8·) 'Bail' in s. 436 of the Criminal ·Procedure Code suggests 'with or without 
surecies'. 
And, 'bail bond' in s. 436(2) covers own bond. [345 El 
(b) 'Bail' in s. 437 (2) suggests release, the accent being on undertaking 
to appear when directed, not on the production of sureties. But s. 437(2) dis-
tinguishes between bail and bond without sureties. [345 F-G] 
H 
A 
B 
c 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 1 S.C.R. 
(c) Section 445 suggests, especially read with the marginal note that deposit 
of money will do duty for bond 'with or without sureties'. [345 GJ 
(d) Superficially viewed, s. 441(1) uses the words 'bail' and 'own bond' 
as antithetical, if the reading is liberal. Incisively understood, section 441 (1) 
provides for both the bond of the accused and the undertaking of the surety 
being conditioned in the manner mentioned in the sub-section. 
To read 'bail' 
as including only cases of release with sureties will stultify the sub-section, for 
then, an accused released on his own bond without bail, i.e. surety, cannot be 
conditioned t0 attend at the appointed place. 
Section 441(2) uses the word 
'bail' to inc1ude 'own bond' loosely as meaning one or the other or 
both. 
Moieover, an accused, in judicial custody, actual or potential, may be released 
by the Court to further the ends of justice and nothing in s. 441 (1) compels a 
oontrary meaning. 
S. 441(2) and (3) use the word 'hail' generically because 
the expression is intended to cover bond with or without sureties; [345 H, 346 
A-CJ 
(e) When the Court of appeal as per the import of s. '389(1) may release a 
convict on his own bond without sureties, surely, it cannot be that an undertrial 
is worse off than a convict or that the power of the Court to release increases 
when the guilt is established. It is not the Court's status but the applicant's 
guilt status that is germane. 
That a guilty man may cla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.