The High Court held that petitioner cannot quash circular not giving absolute mandate however they should follow the circular to bring appropriate sound sureties before magistrate.
The petition to quash circular is down; directions to appear before Magistrate with sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(-1-)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1237 OF 2004
Shri. Raghunath G. Kalekar & Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
The Registrar (Inspection) & Ors. ..Respondents
Miss Vaijayyanti R. Kalekar, for the petitioners.
Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the respondents
CORAM: H.L. GOKHALE AND
SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2004
P.C..
1. Heard Miss Kalekar for the petitioners. Mrs.
Pai appears for the respondents.
2. The petition raises the grievances with respect
to the circular dated 22.3.2003 issued by the 1st
respondent. The circular records that in private
complaint the practice of letting off the accused
persons without execution of any bond has
developed. This creates difficulty in their
remaining present at a later occasion during the
course of the trial. The circular therefore,
directs the Magistrates that a blanket practice of
not taking any kind of bond, should not be
followed.
(-2-)
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the
circular was being pressed into service in summons
case No.51/2004 which is filed in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate at Dapoli, District Ratnagiri
against the petitioners. The learned counsel for
the petitioners points out that the first
petitioner is a retired Officer from Armed Forces
and the other petitioners are his family members.
The petitioners have sufficient landed properties
in the village, however, as a matter of principle,
it is submitted that such bond should not be
insisted upon. It is further submitted that the
respondent No.2 is an influential person in the
village and therefore, it has become difficult for
them to obtain sureties.
4. We see the predicament expressed by the
petitioners, at the same time we find that the
circular does not give a blanket direction that in
each and every matter, the accused should be
insisted upon to furnish personal bond and surety.
The petition seeks direction to quash and set aside
this circular. However, Miss. Kalekar, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a
proper clarification with respect to this circular
will suffice the purpose. In the facts and
circumstances and having gone through the circular,
the position is very clear that this circular does
not give any absolute mandate but only impresses
(-3-)
upon the Magistrate about desirability of taking
bonds. This circular in terms states that the
discretion of the Magistrate under the provisions
under Sections 88 and 436 of Cr.P.C. is not taken
away. This being so, in an appropriate case it
will certainly be open to the Magistrate not to
insist for any kind of personal bond or surety.
5. The petitioners were asked to appear before the
Magistrate on 13.7.2004 and they were also asked to
bring appropriate and sound sureties. If the
petitioners have applied for exemption from
furnishing personal bond or sureties by moving an
application, the learned Magistrate will decide
that application in terms of the directions given
in this order.
6. With the above directions, this petition is
disposed of.
7. Authenticated copy of this order be made
available to the parties.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the circular directing police not to let accused off without bond was pressing into service in the summons case.
Whether the petition for quashment of the circular should be allowed or if clarification would suffice.
Whether Magistrate has disintrtion to not insist for bond under the provisions of Section 88 and 436 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri. Raghunath G. Kalekar & Ors.
The Registrar (Inspection) & Ors.
H.L. Gokhale
V.K. Tahirramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court