^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR CvM.ai.P. No. 595 of 2007 APPLICANTS Rameshwar .and another VERSUS NON-APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh POST FOR ORDER ON 03-1-2008 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge O?.-1-2008 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANTS Cv;M.».P. No. 595 of 2007 1. Rameshwar, son of Jokhan Mukhiya, aged 22 years 2. Tulsi, S/o Dukhan Mukhiya, aged 22 years, Both R/o. Ninbaliya Mahanagni Betiya, Distt. Betiya (Bihar) VERSUS ^ NON-APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Korba (CG) Present: Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate, for the applicants. Shri G.K. Beriwal, Dy. Advocate General for the non-applicant. Dhirendra Mishra, J ORDER (Passedon o3/l/2008) Brief facts necessary for deciding this petition are that the applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No, 191/2007 registered in Police Station Katghora for offence punishable under Section 489(B) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. They moved an application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the charge sheet could not be filed wifhin 90 days of their arrest, however the same was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that subsequent to filing of the petition and before passing any order in the application, charge sheet has been filed. The applicants preferred Criminal Revision No. 1138/2007 and the same was allowed by the learned Magistrate, Korba. The order of Magistrate was set aside and the trial Court was directed to release the applicants on bail on their furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each and solvent sureties having solvency certificate ofRs. 50,000/-. 2 . Placing reliance on the judgment in the matters of Moti Ram and others -v- State of Madhva Pradesh1. Sandeep Jain -v- National Caoital Territorv of Delhi2 and Kanhivalal -v- State of M.P.3, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that imposition of the condition to furnish solvent surety having solvency certificate 'AIR 1978 SC 1594 2 (2000) 2 SCC 66 31988(2)MPWNNote69 .j..-' for release on bail is virtually denial of bail and such onerous condition cannot be imposed while granting bail. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the revisional court considering the nature of allegation against the present applicants that fake currency notes in the denomination of 1,000 and 500 in large number have been recovered from the applicants, has insisted for solvent surety having solvency certificate with a purpose to ensure that they do not abscond. 4. In the matter of Motiram1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the discretion of the criminal courts to impose conditions for releasing an individual on bail has held that bearing in </ . ^the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice, individual freedom and indigent's rights, bail covers both release on one's own bond, with or without sureties, when surety should be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variables. Poor men, young persons, infirm individuals and women are weak categories, and the courts should be liberal in releasing them on their own recognizance by imposing reasonable condition. 5. In the matter of Sandeep Jain2, while granting bail to an individual accused of offence under Section 420 and 406 of I.P.C. Metropolitan Magistrate imposed a condition and the accused was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the above order and directed his release on bail on executing bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court. 6. In the matter of Kanhivalal3, the M.P. High Court relying upon the judgment in Motiram's1 case held that production of solvency certificate as a condition for grant of bail cannot be imposed. 7. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the applicants were arrested for offence punishable under Section 489 (B) on the allegation of possessing large number of fake currency notes, charge sheet was filed on 91st day after the applicants filed an application under Section 167(2) of the Code for being released on bail. The Sessions Court allowed the criminal revision and directed their release on the conditions mentioned hereinabi^e. It is true that ^>^^..., ^•a~€"l'%.. s 1 ~'^1^ ^ ^ '^ J^' \^-^/ onerous and in-executable conditions should not be imposed for granting bail, the discretion should be exercised judiciously. When the accused is too poor, insistence for furnishing bail and sureties should not be resorted to and where the Magistrate is satisfied after enquiring into the condition and background ofthe accused and he is not likely to abscond, he may be released with an order to appear. 8. However in the instant case, learned Sessions Judge after considering the facts and circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicant has insisted for solvent surety having solvency certificate. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which any interference is called for in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 03-1-20U» _ ^.