Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Navid, was accused No.3 in Crime No.103/2019 registered at Aurad Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested on 31.08.2019 along with other accused persons. The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bidar, by order dated 18.09.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.538/2019, enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions, including that he execute a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties, one of whom must be from Bidar district, and also deposit cash security of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the condition requiring a local surety from Bidar, the petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash that condition. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is a resident of Kalaburagi and has no acquaintances in Bidar to stand as surety, making it impossible for him to comply with the condition, thereby keeping him in judicial custody despite being granted bail. The High Court, after hearing the counsel, found that the condition of furnishing a local surety from Bidar was unreasonable and oppressive. The court noted that the petitioner had already been arrested, interrogated, and produced before the court, and was no longer required for investigation. The court held that such a condition would defeat the very purpose of granting bail and quashed the condition, directing the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties without the requirement of a local surety from Bidar.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail Conditions - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of Unreasonable Condition - The petitioner, accused under Section 398 IPC, was granted bail subject to condition of furnishing one surety from Bidar district. The High Court held that such a condition is unreasonable and oppressive, especially when the accused is from Kalaburagi and has no local connections in Bidar. The condition was quashed as it prevented the petitioner from being released on bail despite being entitled to it. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition imposed by the Sessions Court requiring the petitioner to furnish one surety from Bidar district out of two solvent sureties is reasonable and legal.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the condition requiring one surety from Bidar district. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties, without the requirement of a local surety from Bidar.
Law Points
- Bail conditions must be reasonable and not oppressive
- Local surety condition cannot be imposed without justification
- Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash unreasonable bail conditions
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (10) 2
Criminal Petition No.201277/2019
Sri Sanjay A. Patil (for petitioner), Sri P.S.Patil, HCGP (for respondent)
Navid S/o Khursid Ali Shaik
The State of Karnataka, through Police, Aurad (B) Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a condition in a bail order requiring a local surety from Bidar district.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the condition in the bail order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bidar in Criminal Miscellaneous No.538/2019, to the extent that one of the sureties must be from Bidar district.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a resident of Kalaburagi, was unable to furnish a surety from Bidar district as he had no acquaintances there, resulting in his continued detention despite being granted bail.
Previous Decisions
The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bidar granted bail to the petitioner on 18.09.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.538/2019 subject to conditions including furnishing two solvent sureties, one from Bidar district, and cash security of Rs.10,000/-.
Issues
Whether the condition requiring a local surety from Bidar district is reasonable and legal.
Whether the High Court can quash such a condition under Section 482 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Kalaburagi and has no local connections in Bidar, making it impossible to comply with the condition of furnishing a surety from Bidar. He argued that the condition is oppressive and defeats the purpose of bail, as the petitioner continues to languish in judicial custody despite being granted bail.
Respondent's counsel (HCGP) did not make any specific submissions as the petition was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi
A condition in a bail order requiring the accused to furnish a surety from a specific district, when the accused has no local connections there, is unreasonable and oppressive. Such a condition defeats the very purpose of granting bail and can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is still languishing in the judicial custody and therefore, seeks to quash the condition.
The condition imposed by the Court below to furnish a local surety from Bidar is unreasonable and oppressive.
Procedural History
The petitioner was arrested on 31.08.2019 in Crime No.103/2019. He applied for bail before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bidar, who granted bail on 18.09.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.538/2019 subject to conditions including furnishing two solvent sureties, one from Bidar district, and cash security of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the local surety condition, the petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC on an unspecified date. The High Court heard the matter and passed the order on 16.10.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 398
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 482
