Magistrate Orders Accused To Furnish Bail Bond "In 45 Mins", Punjab & Haryana HC Directs All Judicial Officers To Undergo Program On Fundamental Rights

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed its Registrar General to arrange orientation course on Fundamental Rights for all the judicial officers of District Courts across Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.

The development came after a Magistrate had ordered to furnish the bail bond allegedly within 45 minutes after passing of the default bail order. The applicant failed to comply and the Court cancelled the bail. The order was challenged before the Revisional Court and it also concurred with the decision of the Magistrate.

Taking note of the "unreasonable and onerous condition" imposed by the Magistrate, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri opined that, "there is a dire necessity of further enlightening the judicial officers of the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT, Chandigarh at District level due to dynamism in the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Fundamental Rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India are fundamental to the rights of the citizens of India and some other persons as well and they are inherent and also part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is dynamic and is not static in nature."

The Court further added that for the purposes of considering bail matters, the Fundamental Rights especially under Article 21 of the Constitution have to be always kept in mind since the personal liberty of an individual is involved.

"Therefore, the judicial officers of District Courts who every day deal with the personal liberty of accused persons should have full expertise not only on the practical aspects but also on the academic aspects pertaining to the Fundamental Rights since a balance has to be struck every time when any matter for grant of bail is considered."

A plea was filed under Section 482 of CrPC for setting aside the order passed by ASJ who upheld  the decision of Magistrate to cancel the default bail. The accused was booked for extortion however when the police failed to present the chargesheet in 60 days, he applied for default bail under Section 167(2).

It was case of the petitioner that he applied the bail on 61st day in the morning at 11: 30, the chargesheet was presented by the police in the evening at 4:30 PM.

The Magistrate allegedly granted the default bail at 3:45 PM with the condition that he shall be released on default bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000  with one surety in the like amount before 4.30 pm on the same day. The accused failed to furnish the bond within the stipulated time and consequently his bail was cancelled. In revision the ASJ upheld the Magistrate's order.

Considering the submissions, the Court said that the right of default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C and imposition of conditions thereon is no longer res integra.

The Court referred to Uday Mohan Lal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra in which the Apex Court observed that, "an accused must be held to be availed of his right flowing from the legislative mandate and engrafted in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code, if he has filed an application after the expiry of the stipulated period alleging that no challan has been filed and he is prepared to offer the bail that is ordered and it is found as a fact that no challan within the period prescribed from the date of the arrest of the accused."

Justice Puri further said that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising detention of an accused in custody after the expiry of the period indicated in proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 167 CrPC except the contingency indicated in Explanation-1, namely, if the accused does not furnish the bail i.e. in case the accused does not satisfy the condition of bail and does not furnish bail and bonds, then his right gets extinguished when in the meantime the challan is filed.

Reliance was also placed on Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam in which it was observed by the Supreme Court that "in the matters of personal liberty, the Court should not be too technical and must lean in favour of personal liberty and whether the accused makes a written application for 'default bail' or an oral application for 'default bail' is of no consequence."

The Court concluded that "in the present case the condition which was imposed by the Magistrate was that on the day on which the default bail was granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C on 13.07.2023, the petitioner was directed to furnish bail and bonds by 4.30 p.m. It was the case of the petitioner that the Magistrate had pronounced the order of grant of default bail at 3.45 p.m but from the record the time is not discernible. However such a ground taken by the petitioner before the Revisional Court was not even considered in true perspective as to at what point of time the order was pronounced."

"Be that as it may be, once a default bail has been granted by the Court, then imposition of such a condition although permissible under the law cannot be unreasonable, impractical and onerous condition," the bench added.

Consequently, the Court set aside the condition imposed by the Magistrate by which the petitioner was directed to furnish surety by 4.30 PM on the same day. It further directed that furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of like amount is also "unreasonable" and is modified and it shall be of Rs.10,000 only instead of Rs. 1,00,000.

Hence the petitioner was granted relief stating that he shall be released on default bail forthwith subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned on the basis of the modified conditions.

While noting that there is a dire necessity of further enlightening the judicial officers of the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT, Chandigarh at District level due to dynamism in the scope of Article 21, the Court directed the Registrar General to coordinate with the Director of the Judicial Academy, Chandigarh for making all earnest efforts for arranging orientation course only on specialized subject of Fundamental Rights to all the judicial officer.

Appearance: Rahul Bansal, Advocate and  Shubham Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Vivek Singla, APP, U.T, Chandigarh