Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 213 (HP)

MANGAL NADHAN v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-08-04

M.R.VERMA

body2003
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.: —This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) against the order dated 5.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan whereby the order dated 9.5.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan refusing to attest the bail bonds furnished by the accused, has been affirmed. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State. 3. It is not in dispute that the accused has been arrested by the police in a case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On an application moved for grant of bail by the accused, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan admitted the accused to bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two surety bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court. The accused then furnished the requisite bonds alongwith an application for attestation thereof in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate noticed certain material discrepancies in the various certificates and one of the surety bonds, therefore, declined to accept them vide his order dated 9.5.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan by the impugned order. Hence the present petition by the accused. 4. I have perused the records. Evidently, there are certain material discrepancies about the particulars of the surety in the certificates and the bond. Apart from variance in the particulars of the surety, there are certain unauthenticated cuttings on the documents furnished. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the suspicion about genuineness of the documents as entertained by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate was unfounded and without any basis. The bonds are to be furnished to his satisfaction, therefore, primarily it is his satisfaction which matters and in such matters interference to reverse such conclusion will not be justified. 5. However, there is another angle to look into the matter. The accused belongs to the State of Tamilnadu. He has arranged the sureties from Tamilnadu. The bonds are to be furnished to his satisfaction, therefore, primarily it is his satisfaction which matters and in such matters interference to reverse such conclusion will not be justified. 5. However, there is another angle to look into the matter. The accused belongs to the State of Tamilnadu. He has arranged the sureties from Tamilnadu. Being in custody, it is not within the powers of the accused to get something done in the matter which may prove to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate that the bonds and the documents in support thereof are genuine and untampered with. Therefore, it would have been in the fitness of the things and in the interest of justice if the relevant documents were sent to the issuing authority to clarify the facts giving rise to the suspicion and to return the same with clarification/comments to the Court. This course the learned Magistrate has not adopted whereas in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice it ought to have been done. 6. As a result this petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with the direction to send the documents filed in support of the bail bonds to the authorities which have issued them for verification/clarification whether these are the genuine documents concerning the sureties or not. After receipt of such clarification, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will dispose of the application for attestation of the bonds afresh in accordance with law. 7. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused that the accused may try to furnish other bail bonds if possible, therefore, it may be clarified that if fresh bail bonds are furnished by the accused, nothing contained in this order will be treated as barring attestation of such fresh bail bonds by the learned Magistrate. 8. There is nothing in law which may prevent an accused from furnishing fresh bail bonds pursuant to the bail order. Therefore, the accused, if so advised, is at liberty to file fresh bail bonds. Dasti copy, as prayed for, on usual terms.