IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-21483 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.8.2010 Surinder Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Dinesh Nagar,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 18.6.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar in case FIR No. 141 dated 2.12.2009 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC, registered at P.S.Sadar Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar qua to the extent whereby the petitioner has been directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lac with two local sureties. Notice of motion was issued on 28.7.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a poor person and is unable to arrange two local sureties of Rs.1 lac and because of that still he is in jail. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish two sureties of his own district of some reasonable amount as he belongs to District Patiala and all his relatives as well as friends are there only. Learned counsel also relies upon Crl.Misc. No.M-21483 of 2010 [2] the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Moti Ram and others v. State of M.P. AIR 1978 SC 1594 to support his contention. Learned counsel for the State has no objection in furnishing sureties from district Patiala with some reasonable amount. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order and other documents available on record. FIR No. 141 dated 2.12.2009 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC was registered against the petitioner and was granted regular bail vide order dated 18.6.2010 by the Sessions Judge, S.B.S.Nagar. The petitioner has been ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with two local sureties to the satisfaction of Illaqa /Duty Magistrate. The petitioner is permanent resident of district Patiala and is also having all relations and friends in that area only and because of that reason he is not in a positon to furnish two local sureties of District S.B.S.Nagar and that too of an amount of Rs.1 lac. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be genuine and the petition deserves to be allowed. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Moti Ram's case (supra), it has been held as under: 1. “ Even so, poor men – Indians are, in monetary terms, ingredients – young persons, infirm individuals and women are weak categories and courts should be liberal in releasing them on their own recognisances – put whatever reasonable conditions are may.” It shocks one's conscience to ask a mason like the petitioner to furnish sureties for Rs.10,000/- The magistrate must be given Crl.Misc. No.M-21483 of 2010 [3] the benefit of doubt for not fully appreciating that our Constitution, enacted by “We , the people of India, is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candle stick nake – shall we add the bounded labour and pavement dweller.” In view of the facts as mentioned above, the petition is allowed and order passed by the Sessions Judge, S.B.S.Nagar is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of District Patiala. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 2, 2010. raghav