STATE OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR v. BALCHAND @ BALIAY

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: V. R. Krishna Iyer
N. L. Untwalia
Judgment Date: 1977-09-20
Court Decision / Holding: The petitioner Bal Chand is granted bail on a bond of his own and one surety for Rs. 5,000, to the satisfaction of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baren, with the condition that he report before the local police station every fortnight.
Final Disposition: Granted bail

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bal Chand @ Baliay

Respondents

State of Rajasthan, Jaipur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. R. Jain

Counsels for Respondents

• D. Mukherjee
• V. S. Dave
• R. C. Tyagi
• S. S. Khanduja

Case Synopsis & Summary

Bal Chand @ Baliay, the respondent, had been convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court but released after the High Court acquitted him. Following leave granted to the State to file an appeal against the acquittal, he surrendered before the trial court and moved for bail under Order XXI, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules. The Supreme Court reiterates the fundamental principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, to be applied only when there are concrete reasons such as fleeing from justice, obstructing the course of justice, repeating offences, or intimidating witnesses, with the gravity and heinousness of the offence also weighing in the court’s deliberations. In balancing these factors, the Court finds that the petitioner’s record shows he has remained on bail during the trial and there is nothing to suggest abuse of the court’s trust; he is a 27-year-old with dependents and a social milieu not unfavourable to him. The Court also notes that although pecuniary bail is traditional, other forms of security by relatives or organizations may be more socially relevant in some contexts. Nevertheless, it adheres to the ordinary practice in this case, directing that Bal Chand be released on bail on furnishing a bond of his own and one surety for Rs. 5,000, with a condition to report to the local police station every fortnight. The Court also observes that relationships and undertakings may be a viable alternative in appropriate cases.

Provisions of Law Cited

Supreme Court Rules 1966, Order XLVII, rule 6Supreme Court Rules 1966, Order XXI, rule 6

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Bal Chand contended for bail on monetary surety, arguing that he has complied with bail previously during trial and that his social circumstances do not indicate desparation or likely to evade justice; he urged that a fortnightly reporting obligation and a Rs. 5,000 surety be sufficient to ensure appearance and prevent abuse.

Contentions of Respondents

The State urged that bail should be approached with caution, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the risk of absconding or other abuse; while not opposing bail outright, it preferred safeguards that would prevent evasion of justice.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

531 STATE OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR _V._ BALCHAND @ BALIAY _September_ 20, 1977 (V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] _Bail-Interim bail pending the hearing of an appeal-Guidelines regarding_ _grant_ _of-Supreme_ _Court Rules_ 1966, _Order XLVII, rule_ 6, _r/w_ _Orller_ _XX/_ _rule_ 6. A B The petitioner-respondent was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court but released after the judgment of the High Court. The petitioner surrendered before the trial court as required under Order XXI rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules after leave was granted to the State to file an appeal again•! C acquittal by the High Court and moved an applic,Pon for bail. Granting the bail, the Court, HEID _:_ The basic rule is bail, not jail, except where there are circumstanccg suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the 1ike by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. When considering the question of bail, the gravity of the offence involved and the heinousness of the crime which are likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the 1) course of justice must weigh with the court.· In the instant case the circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail on monetary suretyship at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the abscondence or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station once every fortnight, He was on bail throughout the trial but was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court. He is not a E desparate character or an unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place on him to tum up to take justice at the hands of the court. [536 A·DJ _OBSERV AT/ON:_ While the system of pecuniary bail has a tradition behind it, it may well be that in most cases not monetary suretyship but undertaking by relatiom of J the petitioner or organisation to which ·he belongs may be better and-"morc AOcially relevant. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cr!. Misc. Petition No. 1424-1425 of 1977. (Application for release on Bail). _S._ _M._ _Jain,_ for the appellant. G _D._ _Mukherjee,_ _V._ _S._ _Dave, R._ C. _Tyagi_ and _S. S._ _Khanduja,_ for the respondent. _l. Makwana,_ for the intervener. The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. The petitioner moves for bail having surrendered after leave was granted to the State to file an appeal against acquittal by the High Court. H **A** **B** # c **ll** **E** **F** li36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l 978] **1** S.C.R. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. 'We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while be has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the cour~; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desparatc character or unsocial elePJwnt who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family tu maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu clo not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. AL the same **time any possibility** **of** **the** **abscondencc** **or** **evasion** **or** **other abuse** **can** be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report him<clf before the notice station at Baren once every fortnight. **'J'hs** **petitioner will be released. un bail on his entering into a bond** of his own and one surety for Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barcn. While the system of pecuniary hail has a tradi'.ion behind it, the time has come for rethinking on the subject. It may well be that in most cases not monetary suretyship but under! aking by relations of the petitioner or organisation to which he belongs may be better and more socially relevant. Even so, in this case we stick to the practice and direct the furnishing pf one surety for Rs. 5,000/-. **:\pplicatiOn** **for** **intcrvl)ntion** **al/:J\Vcd.** **S.R** _**!Jail**_ _**gr({nted**_