Cr.M.M.O. No. 11 of 2009 18.2.2009 Present: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent. Heard. In the instant case the conditions of the bail have been assailed by the petitioner. The learned Special Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu has passed the following order on 6.1.2009: “Heard at length. The perusal of the reply having been filed by the prosecution goes to show that 1 kg. of charas has been recovered from the possession of the accused. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. has held in 2003 (2) Shimla L.C. 161 that recovery of 1 kg. would not be commercial quantity for purposes of Section 2 (vii)of the Act. That means, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in this case. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate and just if the accused is admitted on bail, especially, when he is ready to be abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by the court in the event of his admittance on bail. Hence, he is admitted on bail subject to the following conditions:- 1. That he will not tamper prosecution evidence nor will hamper investigation. 2. That he will join the investigation as and when directed by the police. 3. That he will furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. One lac with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of in the above noted manner. File after completion be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open Court this 6th day of January, 2009.” In sequel to order dated 6.1.2009, the petitioner has moved an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu passed the following order on 2.2.2009: “This application has been moved pursuance of the order dated 06.01.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge (FTC), Kullu, HP in bail application No. 238-XXII/2008, vide which applicant Surinder Kumar has been ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. one lac with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of this Court. The accused has failed to furnish local sureties as he intended to furnish sureties pertaining to Yamuna Nagar Haryana. In view of this fact, this application stands dismissed. These papers be tagged with the relevant FIR after due completion.” It is apparent from order dated 2.2.2009 that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu had insisted for furnishing two local sureties. The condition insisted upon by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu is contrary to the dicta laid down by their Lordships’ of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moti Ram and others V. State of Madhya Pradesh (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1594). Their Lordships’ of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under: “To add insult to injury, the Magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district: (We assume the allegation in petition). What is a Malayalees, Kannadiga Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk. He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies. What law prescribes sureties from outside or non- regional language applications? What law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district? This tendency takes many forms, some times geographic, sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalistic. Article 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Article 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a court, for redress of grievances in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in any State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India save where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfree in free India and likewise many other minorities. This divagation has become necessary to still the judicial beginnings and to inhibit the process of making Indians, aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is made of united stuff.” I am of the considered opinion that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu was not justified in directing the petitioner to furnish local sureties for his release on bail. The petitioner has undertaken to furnish sureties from Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu dated 2.2.2009 is modified and accordingly, I direct the release of the petitioner on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. one lac with two sureties of the like amount each from Yamuna Nagar, Haryana to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma), Vacation Judge. February 18, 2009. (cr)