Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 271 (UTT)

Manjeet Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-07-07

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
ORDER 1. Learned Counsel of the applicants petitioners has sought modification of the order dated 30.6.2014, wherein it was observed that if mother-in-law and father-in-law surrender, before the Court below, then their bail application will be heard very expeditiously and without unnecessary delay. 2. Now, the learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the precedent rendered in Smt. Reena vs. State by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court on 12.8.2013, wherein it has been observed that if the accused was not arrested during the course of investigation and the offence is of such a nature punishable up to seven years imprisonment, then on surrender of such an accused, the Magistrate should ask him to furnish his personal bond and sureties to his satisfaction to remain present before the Court during the trial. 3. It may be clarified that the auxiliary verb should does not mean that the Magistrate is bound to release the accused by all means, come what may, ignoring the gravity, seriousness which prima facie appears to have verity too. If the acceptance of bail is taken for granted under the impact of the observation made by this Court in Smt. Reen's case, the Magistrate will be bound to release all the accused on bail in all cases in which they have to be tried for the offences punishable up to seven years of imprisonment, and it would mean making all those offences bailable in nature. This is not and cannot ever be the interpretation of either Smt. Reena's case propounded by this Court or of Section 88 Cr. PC. The said interpretation is reflected by bare reading of Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein the helping verb may has been used, while requiring the Magistrate to accept such a bond, that too with or without sureties. The observation of this Court in Smt. Reena's case is advisory in nature that in the facts and circumstances of a particular given case only, if the allegations against the accused persons are not alarming and mind numbing, then the Magistrate may contemplate to release the accused person with or without sureties provided the offence is punishable up to seven years of the imprisonment. However, it is not irrespective of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations. 4. So, in view of the clarification made hereinabove by this Court regarding the interpretation of Section 88 Cr. However, it is not irrespective of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations. 4. So, in view of the clarification made hereinabove by this Court regarding the interpretation of Section 88 Cr. PC in Smt. Reena's case, the modification application moved by the petitioners is accepted only to the effect that the learned Magistrate may dispose of their bail application having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the allegations raised against them in the FIR. 5. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to every District Judge of this State for being discussed in the monthly meeting of the Judgeship.