Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
Ayush Mahendra – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
IA No. 1 of 2020 in Crl. P No. 5782 of 2020
Decided On : 05-01-2021
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 417,420 – Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 82,83,441,482,441-A,444,465,445,436, - Constitution of India 1950- Article 350 , 21- Punishment for cheating – Saving inherent powers of High Court - Proclamation for person absconding - In what cases bail to be taken - Discharge of sureties - Deposit instead of recognizance- Bond of accused and sureties - Language to be used in representations for redress of grievance – Life and Liberty Court has directed Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station to release petitioner on his executing a personal bond with two sureties of which one native place and other one from local. In compliance of same, petitioner approached Station House Officer, Madhapur along with his mother to stand as one of sureties being native place with Fixed Deposit Receipts and necessary documents and local surety, Station House Officer has refused to receive the same on the ground that this Court directed him to release petitioner on executing a personal bond with two sureties as mentioned above to his satisfaction and that he has not satisfied with the sureties furnished by the petitioner and, therefore, he has not accepted the same - Appeal for Bail
Issue : Whether co-accused can stand as a surety to an accused or not?
Held : The object surety is to ensure presence of accused for purpose of completion of investigation and concluding of trial in case of filing of charge-sheet. Surety should be a fit person and a genuine person. He/She should not be a bogus person. Court or Station House Officer has to ascertain and take an undertaking from surety that he/she will ensure appearance of the accused for the purpose of completing the investigation and concluding trial in case of filing charge-sheet. The Station House Officer should be satisfied the genuineness and identity of the surety including residential address of surety. Station House Officer cannot reject or refuse to accept surety offered by mother of the accused, whether she is a co-accused or otherwise.
Findings of the Court : There is a system of granting bail by the police. It is called 'Station bail'. In a bailable offence under Section 436 of the Code, the police is bound to release the accused on bail. In such circumstances, police can obtain bail bond from the accused. Police cannot demand any property document from him. A station bail cannot be cancelled by the police. Cancellation of bail is the exclusive power of the Court. A Magistrate or a Sessions Judge or any Court, demanding production of property documents or R.C. book or any other document to show proof of property either movable or immovable with respect to the bail bond or surety bond amount is against law. It is against Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Result : Petition Allowed
ORDER :
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code'), to extend two (02) weeks-time to the petitioner-accused so as to comply with the order dated 19.11.2020 passed by this Court in Crl. P No. 5782 of 2020 of his surrender before the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station.
2. Heard Mr. B. Shiva Ram Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State.
3. The petitioner is accused in Crime No. 913 of 2020 on the file of Madhapur Police Station. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC. The petitioner herein has filed an application vide Crl. P No. 5782 of 2020 seeking anticipatory bail. This Court vide order dated 19.11.2020, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein by imposing certain conditions including the condition that he shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station within two (2) weeks from that day, and on such surrender, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with one surety from his native place and one local surety for a like sum each to his satisfaction.
4. While so, the petitioner herein has filed the present application specifically contending that his grandfather has expired on 21.11.2020 due to dementia, had to attend his funeral rites and he had to arrange other needs of family. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith his mother, who wanted to stand as native place surety, have traveled to Hyderabad on 1.12.2020 and after obtaining fixed deposit receipts reached the Madhapur Police Station on 2.12.2020 at around 12.00 noon. It is further contended that the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station has refused to accept the native surety, who is mother of the petitioner, without assigning any reason. The said action of the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station is contrary to the principles of law and also in violation of the orders granted by this Court on 19.11.2020 in Crl. P No. 5782 of 2020.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court has directed the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station to release the petitioner on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of which one native place and the other one from local. In compliance of the same, the petitioner approached the Station House Officer, Madhapur alongwith his mother to stand as one of the sureties being native place with Fixed Deposit Receipts and necessary documents and local surety, the Station House Officer has refused to receive the same on the ground that this Court directed him to release the petitioner on executing a personal bond with two sureties as mentioned above to his (SHO) satisfaction and that he has not satisfied with the sureties furnished by the petitioner and, therefore, he has not accepted the same.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the said action of the Station House Officer is illegal and in violation of the orders of this Court passed in Crl. P No. 5782 of 2020. He would further submit that the Station House Officer cannot take advantage of the word used "to his satisfaction" and also cannot refuse the surety of the mother of the petitioner. The learned Counsel also would submit that the mother of the petitioner whether she is a co-accused or not, can stand as a surety and there is no prohibition in the Code that mother cannot stand as surety to his son whether she is an accused or not. In support of the same, he has placed reliance on the principle laid down in Kamla Bai Gopalrao Jamdar v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, 1990 Crl. LJ 2550; Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1978) 4 SCC 47; Sagayam @ Devasagayam v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police Station, Chennai, ; State of Maharashtra
Point of Law : Surety Bond - surety bond is a contract and it is a question as to how far its terms can be considered to have been varied by any unilateral act. Each bond, it may be pointed out, has....
(1) Excessive bail is no bail – To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with left hand what is given with right.(2) In case of multiple FIRs, Same set....
The discretion of the court in accepting the same set of sureties in multiple cases and the emphasis on the competency and reliability of sureties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
