R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THESE matters have been placed before this Full bench, with a view to consider whether trial Court can issue directions on the accused persons who are acquitted by it to furnish bail- bonds which would remain in force for a year from the date of acquittal with a view to ensure their presence, in the High court, should an acquittal appeal be filed against such acquittal orders.

( 2 ) IN Special Criminal Application No. 972 of 1997, the petitioners were acquitted by judgment and order dated 29th April, 1997 of the Additional Sessions judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 157 of 1996 for the offences under s. 302 and 498a read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, but, by that very order the trial Court directed that with a view to ensure the presence of the petitioners, who were original accused Nos. 2 and 4 and were acquitted, they would be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 2,000. 00. A further condition was imposed that these petitioners will not, without the prior permission of the Court, leave the limits of Kheda District. They were also directed to furnish their addresses to the Nadiad Town Police Station.

( 3 ) IN Special Criminal Application No. 1272 of 1997, the petitioner was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat on 4-12-1996 in Sessions Case no. 90 of 1995 for the offences under S. 394 and 397 of the I. P. C. and Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act, but while acquitting him the trial Court directed that the petitioner should be released on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 2,000. 00. It was also directed that any change in the residential address of the petitioner should be informed in writing to the Court and to the Udhna Police Station well in time. According to the petitioner, since his condition was of an abject poverty, he could not arrange for a surety for being released on bail and had to remain in custody until 9-6-1997, i. e. , for more than six months from the date of his acquittal and it was only when the Sessions Court, due to his inability to furnish bail, released him on personal bond of Rs. 2,000. 00 that he could secure his liberty.

( 4 ) IN Special Criminal Application No. 1273 of 1997, the learned Additional sessions Judge, Surat, by a judgment and order dated 31-1-1997 passed in Sessions case No. 87 of 1995, acquitted the petitioner for the offences under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 114 of the I. P. C. and Sec. 135 of the B. P. Act. The petitioner was accused no. 2 in that case and while he was ordered to be acquitted, it was simultaneously directed by the trial Court that he should be released from jail only on his furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs. 3,000. 00 before the Court. Even in this matter, according to the petitioner, he remained in jail custody for a period of about five to six months.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel who have appeared for the petitioners in these matters have contended that these directions have been issued requiring the petitioners to furnish surety before they could be released from jail, despite their acquittal because of the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Harish Laxman Solanki, reported in [1994 (1)] XXXV (1) GLR 581, by which the High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a view to secure attendance of the accused persons at the appellate stage, issued directions to all the subordinate Courts to cover the appellate period also while taking bail and bail-bonds from the accused. It was submitted that the mandate has been issued by the said decision to all the Criminal Courts that while accepting the bail and bail-bonds for securing attendance before the officer in-charge of the Police Station or the Court, as provided in Form No. 45 in Schedule-II of the Code, all the Criminal Courts shall also take the same covering the appellate as well as revisional stage. In cases where the accused are not on bail, then at the time of either re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document