Bhagwat Joshi @ Shankar Lal Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Last updated: 12 December 2020

Save Share

Quick Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court addressed a case where an accused, facing charges under Section 420/34 of the IPC, was initially granted bail by the Magistrate with a steep condition of a ₹2 lakh bank guarantee. Following a revision, the Additional Sessions Judge reduced this to ₹1 lakh, plus a ₹10,000 bail bond. The High Court, referencing the principle that heavy bail for the poor is wrong and that judicial response should be sympathetic, found the original condition to be unduly harsh.

Court :
Chhattisgarh High Court

Brief :
“The delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criterianecessitating that course. The correctiveinstinct of the law plays upon release orders by strapping on to them protective and curative conditions. Heavy bail from poor men is obviously wrong. Poverty is society's malady and sympathy, not sternness, is the judicial response.”

Citation :
Cr.M.P.No.1395 of 2020

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Cr.M.P.No.1395 of 2020

Bhagwat Joshi @ Shankar Lal Joshi, Kaliram Joshi, aged
about 40 years, R/o Village Ravanguda, P.S. Arjuni,
District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
Petitioner

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through S.H.O. Police Station
Ranchirai, District Balod Chhattisgarh
Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.B.P.Singh, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.Jitendra Pali, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

01.12.2020

“The delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criterianecessitating that course. The correctiveinstinct of the law plays upon release orders by strapping on to them protective and curative conditions. Heavy bail from poor men is obviously wrong. Poverty is society's malady and sympathy, not sternness, is the judicial response.”

1. The abovestated statement of law rendered by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Supreme Court in thematter of Babu Singh & others v. The State of U.P.1 (Para23) aptly applies to the facts of the present case as the trial Magistrate while admitting the accused to be privilege of bail imposed a stringent condition of furnishing bank guarantee of 2 lakhs, which is subjectmatter of this petition.

2. The petitioner is an accused standing trial for offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC. He made an application under Section 437 of the CrPC for grant of bail and eventually that application was granted by learned Magistrate with a condition of furnishing bank guarantee of ₹ 2,00,000/or cash. On revision being preferred by the petitioner, learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod partly allowed the revision and reduced the amount of bank guarantee from ₹ 2,00,000 to ₹ 1,00,000 and also directed for furnishing bail bond of ₹ 10,000/in addition to bank guarantee.

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The main issue was the stringent bail condition imposed on the petitioner, which included a substantial bank guarantee.

The petitioner was accused of an offence under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Magistrate initially imposed a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹2,00,000 or cash.

The Additional Sessions Judge reduced the bank guarantee amount to ₹1,00,000 and also directed the furnishing of a bail bond of ₹10,000.

The High Court referred to the principle that heavy bail for poor individuals is wrong and that judicial response to poverty should be sympathetic, not stern.