Moti Ram v. State of M.P, 1978

Facts

Moti Ram, a poor mason, appealed in the Supreme Court and obtained an order for bail 'to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail on a surety for Rs 10,000. Since the appellant was unable to furnish the surety his brother produced his assets as surety which the Magistrate had rejected as it belonged to other districts.

After aggrieved from the order of the Magistrate, the petitioner again approached the Supreme Court, to modify the original order “to the extent the petitioner be released on furnishing surety of Rs 2,000 or on executing a personal bond or pass any direction which may deem fit to the Honourable Court". 

Issue

1. Whether the order of the Magistrate is justified? 
2. Does the Court have power under CRPC, 1973 to enlarge bond without sureties?
3. What criteria should be followed to decide the amount of bail?
4. Can the Court reject a surety on the ground that his estate is situated in a different State? 

Ratio Decidendi 

1. The order of the Magistrate is a double denial of bail benefit. At first by demands a huge amount which a miserable mason cannot afford. Secondly, by refusing the surety of the petitioner's brother on the ground that the estate belonged to another district.
2. American Jurisprudence provides the power to the Court to release the defendant without bail or on his own recognizance.
3. The Gujrat Committee stated that the bail system causes discrimination by demanding amounts that cannot be afforded by the poor.
4. It is evil of the bail system that poor persons are deprived of their liberty without trial and conviction. Consequently, it is suggested that it is not always mandatory for the Magistrate to grant bail on sureties.
5. Risk of monetary loss is insufficient and not the only deterrent to ensure the appearance of the accused in the Court after release.
6. Geographical allergy at the judicial level makes a mockery of Article 14 of the Constitution.
7. The need for surety and its extent depends on variables.

Decision 

1. Appeal allowed.
2. The Court ordered the Magistrate to release the petitioner on his own bond in a sum of Rs. 1000.