Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16772
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P. DHANABAL
MARTIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP. BY ITS – Respondent
The court emphasized that for minor bail amounts, requirements for immovable property and solvency certificates are excessive, allowing for more leniency in assessing surety solvency.
Headnote:
Bail - Modification of Surety Conditions - Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 - The court found that requiring unnecessary financial documents for minor bonds was inappropriate and established that solvency could be determined through affidavits or movable property, streamlining surety requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought modification of a bail condition imposed by the Special Judge, which required presenting solvency certificates and immovable property documents for sureties, claiming it was not relevant to the bail amount of Rs.10,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the learned Magistrate's insistence on immovable property and solvency certificates was unwarranted per Criminal Rules and that solvency could be validated by affidavits or movable assets.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate could impose restrictions on surety requirements inconsistent with Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, especially concerning solvency documents for small bonds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that under Rule 14(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, a solvency certificate was not always required, particularly for smaller amounts, allowing for affidavits as proof of solvency.
Final Decision: The conditions imposed on the petitioner were modified to exclude unnecessary documentation while keeping other conditions intact.
ORDER
This petition is filed to modify the condition imposed by the Special Judge for EC / NDPS Act cases, Salem that the petitioner/accused should execute a bond each for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of this Court and the sureties should be parents or close relatives or friends are necessary and to prove their identity of the sureties they should have file a passport size photos along with their Aadhar Card or Ration Card or Voter ID Card Proof”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Special Judge insisted to produce solvency certificates and documents for immovable properties like patta, chitta and Adangal certificates in the name of the petitioner and in the name of sureties. The said condition is not all mentioned in the bail order and further he placed reliance on the Rule 14 of Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 and the same is extracted hereunder:
14. Verification of Solvency of sureties.- The responsibility for accepting the surety as solvent for the required amount is primarily that of the presiding officer of the Court and he should discharge it himself by making such summary enquiry as in the circumstances of the case, he may think fit.
(2) The production of a solvency certificate from the Revenue Authorities is not always essential and may be insisted upon only in cases of doubt and cases involving large sums.
(3) For the purpose of determining whether the surety is solvet or not, the Court may, if it thinks fit, accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the solvency of the sureties, or may make such further inquiry as it deems necessary.
(4) Insistence upon the possession of immovable property by surety for bond of small amounts not exceeding Rs.15,000/- would cause serious inconvenience to the accused in procuring a surety. The Judge or Magistrate may, therefore, in suitable cases, where the amount of bond does not exceed Rs.15,000/- assess the solvency of the surety even upon the basis of his movable property and assets. The intending surety should present his application for suretyship in Judicial Form No.46. The Head Ministerial Officer should check the proofs accompanying the applications and thereafter, place the matter before the Judge or Magistrate with his remarks. However, in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, if the amount of bond exceeds Rs.15,000/- the head Ministerial Officer should consider the application in the light of the proofs produced and examine the surety pesonally and may also call for further and better proof. The Judge or Magistrate, after holding a summary enquiry, may pass an order either accepting the surety or rejecting the application.
(5) To avoid abscondence of accused due to furnishing of bogus surety bond by a stock surety, in addition to the proof as mentioned in sub-rule(4) of the format of application of surety, the surety, in all cases in which the offence is serious and the sentence provided is of more than 7 years imprisonment or the cases under the special enactments like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( Central Act 61 of 1985), the Schedules Casetes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( Central Act 33 of 1989), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( Central Act 32 of 2012), the Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act, 1967 ( Central Act 37 of 1967), the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( Central Act 15 of 2003), etc., shall produce copy of at least one of the following documents:- (i) Passport;
(ii) Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India;
(iii) Permanent Account Number Card., i.e PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department;
(iv) ATM/Debit Card or Credit Card issued by any nationalised or private bank of standing at the nation level, having photograph of the holder thereon may be accepted in conjunction with any other authentic document like telephone bill or electric bill a
