JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. The petitioner was allowed to be released on bail forthwith in this case on furnishing her own bond in a sum of Rs.500 for the reasons to be recorded later on. The reasons are now stated hereinbelow. 2. Heard Mr. JH Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. FH Laskar, learned P.P. Assam. 3. It is an appalling story of an underprivileged citizen who was arrested on 20.11.2002 in connection with a criminal case initiated in the year 1994, being Special Case No. 8/94 registered under Section7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), having been granted bail on 26.11.2002, has failed to get herself released from the judicial custody due to an imposition of weighty sum of bail amount and has, therefore, been languishing in the imprisonment for the last more than 6½ months. It is pertinent to note that Section 7 of the Act which provides penalty clause for contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Act, prescribes minimum punishment of imprisonment for 3 months which may extend to 7 years as maximum. But in the instant case, the indigent woman, has, prior to her any conviction on trial, suffered the unconfirmed punishment in total deprivation of her personal liberty merely on an accusation of the commission of offence under the aforesaid section. 4. The fact situation, as has been portrayed in this application under Section 439 read with Section492 Cr.P.C. is that the petitioner, being a poor widow, having one 7 years old minor handicapped child who is unable to move without the help of other person, without having any source of income for her livelihood after the death of her husband, has to maintain herself and her minor child, by selling pan, betel nut etc. On the fateful day on 22.3.1994 at about 4 P.M., while she was selling betel nut at the wayside of Bhootnath, Guwahati along with other persons who were selling kerosene nearby, they came to know that Food and Civil Supply Officers were haunting for illegal kerosene sellers. At this, the person selling kerosene ran way leaving behind their goods, kerosene etc. near the place of the petitioner. At this, the person selling kerosene ran way leaving behind their goods, kerosene etc. near the place of the petitioner. Unfortunately, when everyone has forgotten about the said incident of 22.4.1994, to the utter surprise and shock, on 20.11.2002, after a gap of 8 years, the petitioner has been arrested in connection with the aforesaid case of 1994 alleging that she was illegally selling kerosene along with other 5 persons named in the offence report and search report dated 22.3.1994 annexed as Annexure-B to this petition and since then she has been in jail custody till date. A bail application on her behalf was moved on 26.11.2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati and the learned Judge granted bail to the petitioner by passing the following order :- "C.R. put up today. Seen petition for bail for accused Kamala Devi. Heard. Considered the prayer. She is allowed to go on bail of Rs.20,000 with two sureties of like amount. One of the bailors should be a person in employment with under Govt./Service Govt. Institution." Can anyone expect from a poor wayside vendor such a colossal sum of bail amount? Can she manage to procure a surety of such a person who is in employment under Govt. Service Obviously not. As a result, she has to be detained herself in the prison for want of bail amount and a prosperous bailor, contrary to her cherished fundamental rights, i.e., right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 for another 5 months. This miserable woman, therefore, has to approach the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati again for sympathetic consideration of the bail conditions and the learned Judge by order dated 9.4.2003, has, this time, been pleased to allow her to go on fresh bail of Rs.10,000 with one surety of the like amount which is also beyond her reach. In the said order, it is reflected that her release of PR bond will create hindrance in disposal of the case early. Ultimately she has to continue her forced detention in the cell before moving this Court. 5. It is really amazing how a poor unsophisticated widow, having no other alternative source of income for livelihood after death of her husband with her 7 years old minor handicapped child, can manage to furnish such a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety of the like amount. 5. It is really amazing how a poor unsophisticated widow, having no other alternative source of income for livelihood after death of her husband with her 7 years old minor handicapped child, can manage to furnish such a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety of the like amount. Faced with this, this Court is reminded to the observation of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer who in Moti Ram's case (Moti Ram and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, noticed as follows :- "The petitioner, a poor mason from M.P., pending his appeal in the Supreme Court, obtained an order for bail in his favour "to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate". The direction of the Supreme Court did not spell out the details of the bail, and so, the Magistrate ordered that a surety in a sum of Rs.10,000 be produced. The petitioner could not afford to procure that huge sum or manage a surety of sufficient prosperity. Further, the Magistrate demanded sureties from his own district. He refused to accept the suretyship of the petitioner's brother because he and his assets were in another district. The petitioner moved the Supreme Court again to modify the original order "to the extent that the petitioner be released on furnishing surety to the tune of Rs.2,000 or on executing a personal bond or pass any other order or direction" deemed fit and proper." In the said decision Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iyer speaking for the Court, in para 29, 30, 31 and 32 observed as under :- "29. ....Bearing in mind the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice, individual freedom and indigent's rights, we hold that bail covers both release on one's own bond, with or without sureties. When sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variables." "30. Even so, poor men. - Indians are, in monetary terms, indigents -young persons, infirm individuals and women are weak categories and courts should be liberal in releasing them on their own recognisance put whatever reasonable conditions you may." "31. When sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variables." "30. Even so, poor men. - Indians are, in monetary terms, indigents -young persons, infirm individuals and women are weak categories and courts should be liberal in releasing them on their own recognisance put whatever reasonable conditions you may." "31. It shocks one's conscience to ask a mason like the petitioner to furnish sureties for Rs.10,000 the magistrate must be given the benefit of doubt for not fully appreciating that our Constitution, enacted by "We, the People of India', is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker - shall we add, the bonded labour and pavement dwelle. "32. To add insult to injury, the magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district! (We assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malayalees, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk? He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or is a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surety achieved by such provincial allergies. What law prescribes sureties from outside or non-regional language applications ? What law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district ? This tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic, sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalitic, Art. 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Art. 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a court, for redress or grievances in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in any State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India save where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise an advasi will be unfree in Free India, and like-wise many other minorities. This divagation has become necessary to still the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit the process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is made of united stuff." 6. No doubt, the case at hand is squarely and pertinently covered by this epic judicial authority. Otherwise an advasi will be unfree in Free India, and like-wise many other minorities. This divagation has become necessary to still the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit the process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is made of united stuff." 6. No doubt, the case at hand is squarely and pertinently covered by this epic judicial authority. Here, in instant case, ironically the learned Judge has lost sight of the constitutional mandate which guarantees social, economic and political justice to the citizens in order to bring the equality amongst the affluents and indigents so as to build an egalitarian social order within a Welfare State. Even her prayer to allow to go on personal bail being a reasonable one, was rejected. Since she has failed to comply with bail condition and already completed more than 6 months in detention prior to her actual conviction under the provision of law of Section 7 wherein minimum punishment prescribed is 3 months imprisonment, the learned Judge, taking the date of occurrence into account and considering the period her detention in jail custody, at best, in the interest of justice, ought to have closed the case against her in accordance with law. 7. In view of what has been discussed and observed herein above, the impugned orders are found to be illegal and bad in law and as such for securing the ends of justice the same is hereby quashed. 8. The order of release of the petitioner has already been passed as mentioned above. 9. In the result, this application is allowed.