Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 970 (GAU)

Jiten Baruah v. State of Assam

2018-06-21

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. J. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1. 2. By this petition under section 482 read with section 439(1)(b) of the Cr.PC, the petitioner has prayed for modification of the order dated 26.4.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang at Mangaldoi in GR Case No. 201 of 2018 (corresponding to Sipajhar Police Station Case No. 68 of 2018). 3. Ms. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in jail custody in connection with the above noted case since he was arrested on 26.1.2018 and on completion of statutory period of 90 days, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang at Mangaldoi by order dated 26.4.2018 allowed the petitioner to go on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 30,000 with one local surety of like amount in default to remain in jail custody. 4. Ms. Hazarika further submits that the petitioner is from a very poor economic background and his own brother had filed the FIR against him and as such, considering his poor financial position, he is not in a position to furnish bail of Rs. 30,000 either in cash or in the shape of any solvent bailor to the satisfaction of the learned court below. 5. Ms. Hazarika further submits that as a result of his inability to furnish the required bail bond of Rs. 30,000, the petitioner has been languishing in jail for the last 144 days. In this regard, Ms. Hazarika has relied upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1978) 4 SCC 47 and another judgment of this court passed on 2.2.2018 in Criminal Petition No. 36 of 2018. 6. Mr. P. Sharma, learned Additional P.P. submits that in the backdrop of poor economic condition of the petitioner, who is a permanent resident of village Maharipara under Sipajhar Police Station in the district of Darrang, there is no chance of his jumping the course of justice if he is directed to be released on bail on an amount lesser than the amount imposed by the learned trial court below. 7. 7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 26.4.2018, it is revealed that the learned court below has directed the petitioner to go on bail on executing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000 with one local surety of like amount, which appears to be contrary to the principle laid in the case of Moti Ram (supra) wherein the Apex Court has looked down with the practice of imposing exorbitant amount of bail bond in total disregard to the financial status of the accused. 8. Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Addl. PP, Assam submits that although the petitioner is accused in a murder case, he being a permanent resident of Village Maharipara, under Sipajhar P.S. and a poor labour by profession, has been languishing in jail for inability to furnish bail bond in terms of the bail order, passed by the learned court below. Mr. Mishra, therefore, submits that having regard to the economic condition of the petitioner and the principle laid by the Supreme Court, suitable modifications in the bail amount may be made. 9. Perusal of the impugned order, dated 26.4.2018 reveals that on completion of statutory period of detention, the learned court below has allowed the petitioner to go on bail of Rs. 30,000, in the above noted case, which he is not in a position to furnish due to poor financial position. Having regard to the financial condition of the petitioner as averred in the petition and hearing the learned counsel of both sides and further, the principles laid by the Supreme Court in the above noted cases, this court is of the opinion that for ends of justice, suitable modification in the impugned order needs to be made. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and the petitioner is directed to furnish the bail bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang at Mangaldoi in GR Case No. 201 of 2018 (corresponding to Sipajhar Police Station Case No. 68 of 2018). With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.