Subordinate courts have jurisdiction to release an accused on personal bond pending disposal of bail application, and courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting bail, considering the facts and circumstances of each case, especially for women and children.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS Issma, Prem, Palla alias Yashpal, Ram Kumar and Rakam Singh are involved in Crime No. 7a of 1992 of P. S. Titron, District Saharanpur, under Sections 147, 452, 324, 323, 504, 506 and 308 i. P. C. There are cross cases and injuries have been received on both sides. The writ petition is for quashing the First Information Report and investigation and a further prayer has been orally advanced that in any case the petitioners be admitted bail the same day.

( 2 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel, I do not find that it is a fit case for exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the First Information Report and the investigation of the present case.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has requested that, the bail application of the petitioners may be considered the same day when they surrender and make an application for bail. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the bail applications are not disposed of the same day in the District Courts when the accused surrenders and marks an application for bail. The bail application remain pending for a week or even more than a week.

( 4 ) MY attention has been drawn to the Division Bench case of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ No. 16259 of 1992, Dr. Hidayat Hussain Khan v. State of U. P. and it is submitted that in view of the above decision of this Court the Courts below are not considering the bail of the accused the same day when they surrender and that when the hearing of the bail applications are adjourned, they are not released on personal bonds. It appears that the decision in Dr. Hidayat Hussain Khans case (supra) is not being correctly appreciated by the courts below.

( 5 ) THE question of pre-trial detention has been a matter of great concern for a very long time. The Law Commission in 41 Report observed :"39. 9. . . . . . . Sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in the false cases for purposes of disgracing them and for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing the signs of steady increase. . . . . . "

( 6 ) IT is matter of common knowledge that the professional criminals falsely implicate innocent persons who dare to stand as witness against them in any case. To add to the above, cases have come to light where police officers have been found to have framed up false cases and did not spare even the respectable citizens of our society. There has been spurt in such incidents in the recent past. A warning signal came when a false case was framed up against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad for having consumed liquor. In 1991 Vol. (4) SCC 406 : (1991 Cri LJ 3086) the Supreme Court characterises the same as a "horrendous incident". The incident sent shock waves throughout the country. This was the plight of a person who held a high judicial office what then is the plight of an ordinary citizen ? Can the Courts afford to take an insular attitude to the changing currents of time.

( 7 ) PUTTING an innocent person behind the jail bars ever for a short period disfigures his honour and prestige in the society. Even if such a person is acquitted; none has time to read and go through the reasons of his acquittal. The incarceration of a woman in jail affects her entire life. If unmarried, such a woman would not even get a suitable match. In a civilised society the honour of oneself is ones most precious possess. In Bhagwat Gita the Lord told to Arjun : "akireinehapi Bhutani Kathaishyanti te-a vyayam Sambhavitasua Chakirtir Maranadatirichayate. " (234) (Men will recount why perpetual dishonour, and to one highly esteemed, dishonour exceeded death.)

( 8 ) IN Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, AIR 1989 SC 714 : (1989 Cri LJ 903) the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following passage from Corpus Juris Secumdum Vol. 77 at page 268 :