XI-HC-22 ^o 3^ -ilWlf)^, ^Tn'M'IS, (nlCllUy an^TTtra^ w- ^l l*- .^ ir*1C5TSt>11<» * •• * * * t'^efcj'* * .^>..g^ 2oq^- •^.^.'y^^vm^^.^^...^^^^^, ^ .c-i sn^T^T f^Nisn^r illitiHfeT 311^1 g'WIWBfiiT qil<ltl-l<)1-< 111<'lTfftec^<Rl'K;l< ^atf^TTsn^T 4 ^ \: B! ?F: ?¥i! f Blll.rtfilr! a'%: ffi:: .Is ^:-w HIGH COURT.OF CHHATTISGARH ; BIIASPUR CRIMINAL^VISIQN N0. 303 OF 2003 Gulab Khan 8s Otfaers Vs. The Sta^fe of Ghhattisgarh ORDER (Dated 20*h July, 2005) •tanssaatal iw^s- •^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISOARH : BIL^PUR CRIMINAt RBVISION N0. 303 OF 200S Gulab Khan 8s Others Vs. The State ofehhattisgarh GQRAM : HON'BLESHRI I'AKHRODDIN, J & HON'BLB SHRI^&IUP DESHMUIOI, J ShriY.C. Sharma, counsel for fhe accused persons. Shri J.D. Baipai, Govt. Advocate/Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Chhattisgarh. Shri Anit Walia, Advocate appears as ainicus curaie. Per DUip Deshmukh, J ORDER (Dated 20*b Jiily, 2005) Heard. .13-! 2. The maaner in which two Judicial Ofiicers in fhe State of ChIia.ttisgaTh have rejected ffae bail fumished by the accused/appellants in coinpliaace of the order passed by this Court on 7-3-2005 in CriminalXppealNo.475/2002 tQuXeibKhan & Others vs. The Stdte of ChhattisgcirK) has shocked our judicial conscienee compeUing us to consider tliis luatter ui exercise 6f suo inotu revisiadal povyers. 3. Brief facts are that in Crimmal Appeal No.475/2002 vide order dated 7-3-2005 "ttusCourt hadgranted bailto Oulab Khan^^^^^ ^ < Shabbir @ Shabbu and Minaz Khan and had directed ^iat JJti^i^^ ^ execution of substantive sentenees iDlposed on t±ie^shall| remai|u|fc^gg| suspended |on, Qieir -ftunishing 'personal bonds::,|in-^&tiUiigi;aBggigJgJ| in EBi l»a ^iSIIKI i:i IHMB'fl ii31J;3E!::i •'^^.^;:,-: iillii: fe asaj Ks.20,000/- wifh two sureties m the likewise aaiourit to the \ _; : / : ••. ' - - . - .., ,'' • satisfaction of fhe trial Court concemed for fheir appeaEance befbre fhe said Coiut on 9til May, 2005. 4. ^Jn pursuaiice to itlie order passed by this Gourtt the appeUants fumished surefy of one Kandaku, son pf Sukalu, ^L. !: -.'.. ' • „ ! —....„, „... . resident of ViU^e Bhatpal, ^qlice StationBasur, TehsU& District Dantewada and bf one Shieikh Nuruddin, son of Nainuddin, resident of Geedam, Police Statiori Geedaru, Tehsil & District Dantewada. The snrety borids were accompamed by an afiBdavit relating to fhe imniovable property possessed by fhese sureties as well as documentation in fhe fOFBi of Rmpustika to substanfiate thfiirsoIvencyfbrstaiidmgSiirelyfiiTthfiappeUants. 5. The surety was fiimished befbre Shri M.8. Kerketta, Second Additional Sesstons Jiidge, Batoda Bazar (heremafter referred to as fhBA.S.J.-IIjon 17-3-2005. TfafiA.S.J.-IIrejected the siirety fumished by the appeUaats pn fhfi ground that tooth. fhe sureties belong to anaxal p-one area'whereas l^ friM^ beuig held in Baloda Bazar and therefbre^; if th& appeUaats/accused persons dM^i^remaJii present or^aIssG^^ v-: ,. ;: ! • -• ; : . ; .: , . ; '.'': ' it would be extremfily'diffiGuIttbsearchnotiOiiIyti^ accused/appeUants the leamed Judge resided ia a naxal ':alrea-e!VGn^1±ie,-PollGe-force?:wou|(i::n®tg;Bigjtai8S1 :'::?'^'t^^fSt^^^^^Sll a position to compiy reiected fhe surety. but also the sureties. To add insuEt to jiyury^ | furtherl obsei-ved that since botti thie siarefciesi with.ithe^ODders :of'the:.,Gouj^.j-aii)E||iti|^^||g|||^g ^. '.iil 6. On 2-6-2005 the accused/appellants in compliance of the \ order dated 7-3-2005 passedby this Court fumished two sureties i.e. Shiv Kumar and Bhuneshvyar bofti residents of Baloda Bazar before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda. Bazar <flk. : ' ! •: '*• ; : • • - ' (hereinafter referred to as fhe A.S.J.-I). Theu" siirety bonds were also duly supported wifh af&davit and doeuinentation relating to ^. . . immovable property but this time both the sureties fumished by the appellants met witii rejection by the A.S.J.-Ion 2-6-2005 on the ground that fhe sureties were not Solvent. No reason much less cogent was ass^ned by fhe A.S.J.-I for amving at such a conclusion in fhe order rejecting fhesurety. 7. We have heard Shri Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the accused persons and Shri Bajpai,. leamed Govt. Advocate/Addl. Public Prosecutor appeartng on behatf of the State. / 8. Section 441 otfhe Gode of Crimmal Rrocedure which lays down fhe procedure for furrushing of bonds of accused and surenes is quoted below : '441. Bond o/ accused and surettes.— (l)Before cmy persoff, is relecfsed on bcal or re'tease onhis owrvband, abondforsuch sum cfmaneyasfhe.poiieeqffv^cTCaurt, as the case may be, thinks Siifficient shall be executed by such pereon, and, urfien he fe released ori baS. by Qne or more suffusent suretiss condi^pned thfrf such person shall attend at the time catd placejnentianed inthe &onc^ ^dshaM con&iue^o CB to^aften^ othenmse Wrected by the poUce offlce ar Court, as fhe case^vay be. ^\, SB! lasfflt IIEI r Bii' BSf'?' HKL-:. 'WS^Sit^^^' QEL''fBV^' WiBpuBva. iBuopTE|r(isuoQ| igqi jo ]n][puiniun as^c^j^cvfai 'ss^ ocq uopBufiBun siq psqorpj].s oqA TT-T'S'V aoq^jo ajn^osliioo B A^ ui sapains jiaitO jo s^U®[[3ddB/pasno3BSIQ. ^nosoiaq. 01 JQ unoQ scpjo sjapjo 3T.R IRTA ^dia&o 01 uopisod B ui sq iou PTTIOAI aojoj sonod sip ^usAS qoiqA ui pucosa.B 05. Stss^l S.ISA s^uenaddB aijp ystQ uonosFqo qons AUB asrej ^ou pip uopnossejd-aq^.i.Bqi pT-tg: SA 'pstuaouoo ST II-T'S'V Aq psssad goOS-g-AT ps'tep Jspjo aTp SB JBJ os •OT •sssLog JQ Aouapgjns qons o-t SB '-(Jnoo STR 01 SlBuipjoqns aiBJisi8B]^'B Aq apBm aq cq. Almbm UB ssn^o jo j[as^ Ajrnbin ure^pioq jaq^ ^BUI 'AjBsssog^ sjapTsuoo ii ji 'jo 'saiisjns sTp jo sssiqg JQ Aouaraigns SLO 01 SuifBpj uisjaqi paurei.uoo S^OBJ SLO jo joojd ui siuvBp^e 'tdsooB ABttt IjnoQ arp ^usTogjns J.Q fQ SJB ssTisjns SLR jaTp.aqA 8uTtnmj:3i3p jo ssodmd aip joj iBtp sjnpsoojd JBUTOIUO jo apOQ aTpjo T^t' uoTioag jo (-t?) uoT'1338-qns jo guip^sj UTB^d 'B mojj JBap snrp ST yf •Q , •ssaujifj.o RouaiKjiffns tpns o? so 'vnoo ay? o? 3fowp^oqns afDJfsiBDfv v fiq apaui aq of. fuvibui im asrax) Msfjastf fumbm uo piozt jai{fi3 fivui 'fimsseoau aiapisuoo fi Ji 'JLO <sav)3ws siff jb ssauftf M fbusfsitffns 3Z{} o^ Giawi'^ laa^at^ psum'ftioo symf gii) Jb J'ooj.d uil s^impiffv fdaooo fbnu ynoo at[} 'fua'Ksffns ^o jif asa ssitaj.ns siq-). ^a^sqm. Bunmtu^ap/o asodmd siff ^o^(f-) 'aBjstfo ai{} jamsuoo} sij.noo jm{}o ^o uoissas ^, fo fjnoo 'uno^) i{Bi{j alf? »ouodn paytKi -uaifin jsjaddo 0} p»q uo pasoa^ai uos^ad 3i{} puiq osjD jpn^s puoqr siif) sa^n6ai os asoo ay^ j^ fg} •uopipuoo fcnff-uwfuoo OS[D timfs puoq 3i{'} ^mq uo uoaxarf ^uojo aso^s^ aiit jof pasodun si uajftpuoa fhm a^sq/y[ (z) Z.SV..... barrieis could Be created for fhe sureties to be fumished wifhin \-.-'^::::.'.-1- : ':.';. '-. ':: '-. ':• :" IndiawhichisonefromK^hmiTtoKanvakuinari. •^ jl *i III 11. In the ca.se of Mott Jtam cind Otfeers us. State<>fJWadh»a Pnufesfc reported in AHt 1978 SC 1594, the Apex Court hs^ held that it is not within tlle power pf t&e Gourt to reject a surely •.:'"<;? •.:'•.'. . :1':-.-.:1;.: '—•.'.'.' ' because he or his estate ^eresituated in a dtfferent district pr State. There was no law prescribing fhe gepgraphical disGrimination impllcit in: aslang for siireties from the couTt district. Para 32 of fhe aforesaid decision of Apex Court is relevant and qiioted below: *32. To addmsult tp injury, themctgistrate has demanded Si^ti^^^ his oiyn dfetncf ^ ^We assume fhe allegcitian.wifhe.petition). Whcrtis dMalayalees, Kcmnadya^ Tccrmlar Telugu. to do if arrested^r aHeged misc^propricrtion or;th^? pr CTimmati .t?Bspa^^^^ Port Btcdr PahaEgK^or;©ftan^mGhOTt^P ife ^ ^sw'ett^ fswimmg ^pro^rVses^ wz fhese distixnt pteo^ .He^ffi^ not ^ mig^iftc^ifasime^^^afi^Qr^^fe^ in a mon^iCT, yudK^disrupifeno^ ts surest aelvevedy^ suchFraimncml cSiergiies. WJwxt lcav prescn&es suretfes ^om oittside or non-regicmal Ztwiguag®c^licartQnsF' WWat law prescnbes the rgeQgrap1racxd disavnin.dtian implieit in asktng^for swstiss frant ttte Cawt distnct? This tendenc^ tdfces mccn.y ''fanns, so?n^nWs^^^gBOgr«pftiQ sotroeftmes^^^^^ te scmtettrne& legiSistu:.. Art. 14 pfutectS all ^ncKCTis gua ^dimi^ Knt^^^^^^t^ IruS.ia. Art. 350 sanctions repreSentcSumtpcmy ffUthont^ mctodOT^^^^ c^ grieyanc^ m (?Bi^^awguage used^^^^ qf Ihfi^ ^^uMe^^be^^^the^^ even^avdkalcit.^f^vmafwntnaSe^ Ixmguage ^i^srS^^^^^^ inusfbe lux^i^S^ey^rywhere in^W Kd^ saiw]^wKere ^vedM^^^^l^^ ?»»ifran/;ex(ste.(\(%^riyise^a^ im^e OT;ipy^.&i<^ i^d HfceiU^i^;^^ '••S^^KM ^w'sss 'fStgsasssu 6 <4<& minorities. JTvs divagation has become necessary tq st&l thejudvdctlbeginnings, and t6 inhibit the pf-ocess of making Indians cdiens in thetr own homeland. Swccraj is Tnade ofunited stuff.' 12. The approach of titie A.S.J.II is all fhe more disheartening 1 because fhere was no direction given by fhis Court on 7-3-2005 in CriminalAppealNo.475/2002 that the accused/appellaats shaU . ' : <^ fiicnish local sureties. The'order dated 7-3-2005 was that the accused/appeUants shall fumish personal bond in fhe sum of Rs.20,000/- with tvyo sureties in fhe like amoiint to fhe satisfaction of the trial Court concemed for their appearance before fhesaid Court on 9*h May, 2005. It is fhus clear that fhe satisfaction of the trial Court should have been exercised ia a reasoned manner and not in. an arbitrary manner as the A.S.J.-II had done. The order of rejeGtion of sureties passed by A.S.J.-II on 17-3-2005 tantamoiints not only to negation of the right to personal liberty of the appellants but also nuUifies fhe right to any person residing in a naxal prone areato stand surety. Italso shows utter disregard for the orders passed by this Court. The manner uivyhichfheA.S.J.-II imposed a geographical bamer fe»r fhe appeUants in fhe m.atterof? fumishmg siirety tantamoimts to negatron of fhe order passed by? this Court oa 7-3-2005 inCriminal AppealNo.475/2002.It^ts^ pertinent to note fhat fhe A.S.J.-II had, in fhe ordejr datedRI7-g-I 2005, not even stated tl}at the sureties did not meet fie testpijfllgili :!v^./.:iSB:SBBSiH sufiiciency under Section 441(4) ofttie Code of Crunmal I?K>c^a|Bgg|g|i|| Once; fhe surety funiished by fhe accused/aI®effiai||j||^B{B siipported by an aBidavit and photograph of the s|l|j^||j|^B|K| ',, ^;e@BB 'w documentation to substantiate fhe solvency of the surety it stood the test ofsuf&ciency a^ laid down tn Section 441 sub-section 4 of the Code of Criininal Procedure and fhe A.S.J.-H had no junsdiction to create geographical bacriers for_rejection of sueh sureties. Order passed by the A.S.d.-II has thus caused a serious ^X miscarriage ofjustice. 13. We, fherefore, consider 'fhis to be a fit case for exercising fhe powers of suo motu revision. The order, prima facie, ori the one hand amounts to transgressmgjudiciallioiits by fhe A.S.J.-H and also puts a label of incompetency on the Police in CUhattisgarh State to search tihe accused persons and fhe sureties in a: naxal «prone area. The leamed Addl. Public Prosecutor had categoricaUy stated that fhe Police force in Chhattisgarh is competent in laaiataimng fhe law and order in the State. 'We strongly disapprove of the observations made by fhe A.S.J.-II since fhey tend to demoralize fhe PoUce force who are posted m. naxal prone areas. The sureties had come all fhe way from Geedam and Dantewada to fumish baU and had fumished fheir baU bonds, afHdavits and valid docum.entation regarding fheir unmovable property. ^'>... 14. On 2-6-2005, fhe accused persons had fiimished two sureties as inentioned hereinabove. WIien these sureties %ere fumished the A.S.J.-I rejected the same in a most casualK aiidl ^^, arbitrary niaaner without assigning any reason. AccordMi|||fc||^| !Sectk>n 441(4): ofthe CodeiofGSriminalProcediire,it;'is,:|)@e|||||BBi ^ . . . '.. ^ '• •. .:;'^: teamed Judge to Imld an inquiry itselfor eat^e^an:2? ./ S made by a Magistrate subordinate to fhe Court in case fhe surety fumished does not app^ar to be sufiicient. In the instant case there is nothing tp show fhat any such inqLiiry was inade. The A.S.J.-I did not even care to indicate as to what was fhe deficiency <*f- for which fhe sureties have been branded as incompetent or unfit. The approach of fhe A.S.J.-I smacks of arbitrariness and am.ounts 4 •• ! to negation of the right to persifeal liberty of fhe appetlants. 15. Having considered fhe facts aad circimistances of fhe case, inaterial on record and in view of fhe law laid down by the Apex Court, fhe orders dated 17-3-2005 and 2-6-2005 passed by the A.S.J.-H and A.S.J.-I respectively are set aside. Office is directed to send back tfae origiial papers to fhe trial Court. Photocopies of fhe said papers be kept in this record. The trial Court shaU, in view of the observations inade by us,proceed tn fhis matter stricfly in accordance witfa law. 16. At fhis stage, learaed counsel for the accused/appellaats pointed out that fhe date (9-5-2005) giveri for the appearaaGe of fhe accused/appeUan.ts vide order dated 7-3-2005 by ttus Court bas lapsed, hence fresh date be given. Aceordm^ly, fhe date for appearance of the accused/appeUaiits before the trial Court after furaishing bail is now fixed for 28tn Noveiiiber, 2005 aud. on such oth.er dates as inay be given to theni by fhe said Court. . 17. Befpre parting, we record our appreciation for fhe assistance rendered by Shri Aiul Walia, Advocate who appeared as amicus cilraie in this matter. 7 r—-^v Sd/- Fakhruddih Judge \, DiU Sd-/ • isahebD Judge K'l:t'i •';:y^'! :ai