1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 64 OF 2008 Deelip S. Shetye Prisoner No. 538, Presently lodged in Agwad Jail, Through his brother Sahadev S. Shetye, Panaji-Goa. ... Petitioner V/s 1. The State of Goa, (Through under Secretary Home Department), Alto-Porvorim, Goa. 2. The Inspector General of Prison, Collector Building, North Goa, Panaji. 3. The Superintendent Central Jail, Agwad, Goa. .... Respondents Mr. T. George John, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2009 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. 2. The petitioner, a convicted prisoner undergoing sentence under Section 302 IPC, by order dated 16/06/2008, was ordered to be released on furlough for a period of 15 days and was further required in terms of the said order, to execute a bond with surety in form no. I in the sum of Rs. 1 lac or give cash security in the said sum. The order remained without being 2 complied with on account of the inability of the petitioner to execute the said bond which according to the petitioner is excessive. 3. An affidavit has been filed by the Inspector General of Prisons and in the said affidavit it is stated that it is mandatory to impose conditions in terms of Rule 318 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006. It is also stated that the amount of the bond has been fixed at Rs. 1 lac pursuant to a decision arrived at the meeting held on 26/03/2008 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, a copy of the said minutes have been annexed to the said affidavit. 4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that the amount of the bond is excessive. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner was earlier ordered to be released twice and both the times the petitioner has executed the bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with one surety in the like amount and the petitioner upon expiry of the period had returned to jail and, being so, there was no reason why this time the petitioner ought to have been directed to execute a bond of Rs. 1 lac with one surety in the like amount. In support of the submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 21/08/2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 53/2008 in the case of Venkatesh K. Patil V/s. State of Goa & 2 Ors. in which this Court had occasion to observe as follows; “3. It appears that the bond amount of Rs. 1 lac has been fixed in view of the policy decision taken on 26/03/2008 3 pursuant to the directions of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 5/2008. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was earlier released on furlough by order dated 30/09/2003 for a period of 30 days and on completion of the said period the petitioner had returned to jail. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had executed a bond of Rs. 10,000/- while being released on furlough by order dated 30/09/2003. If that is so, there is no reason why, the amount of bond to be executed this time had to be enhanced. It is also submitted that the petitioner's case is not covered by the said decision. Being so, it would be in the interest of justice that the amount of the bond required to be executed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 6/06/2008 is reduced to the same amount of the bond executed by him when the petitioner was granted furlough by order dated 30/09/2003.” 5. There is a salutary principle laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in terms of Section 440 thereof, that the amount of every bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and should not be excessive. There is no reason why a principle like, should not be followed, in principle, in cases like this. In case the petitioner had complied with the provisions of bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with one surety in the like amount when the petitioner was released earlier, there was no particular reason why the decision taken at the said meeting should have been followed in the case of the petitioner, and, this makes the decision wholly arbitrary. 6. In the light of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is partly modified in that the petitioner will now be released by the Inspector General of Prisons upon execution of a bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, within a period of two weeks. Petition 4 disposed of on the above terms. Expedite authenticated copy. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-