K.T. Thomas, J.

1. It is very unfortunate that six persons involved in a bailable offence were not bailed out in spite of their offer to give bail with two solvent sureties each. The magistrate, for all practical implications, converted the bailable offence into a non-bailable one through his order. It is distressing to note that he was unmindful of the clear exhortations made by this Court in Valson v. State of Kerala (1984 KLT 443) in which Bhat, J. (as his lordship then was) gave advice to the judicial functionaries in unmistakable terms that:

"Courts would do well to remember that the purpose of insisting on sureties is only to ensure the presence of the accused in court for the purpose of trial and nothing more. Where from the facts and circumstances in a given case it is possible to come to the conclusion that there is no likelihood of bail jumping' by the accused who is released on personal bond it would be utterly arbitrary to insist on sureties. Even where sureties arc insisted on, ordinarily, due weight must be given to the affidavits produced by the sureties and an enquiry or insistence on a solvency certificate must be the exception rather than the rule".

2. The facts