Navid vs The State of Karnataka. Criminal Petition 201277/2019 decided on 16 October 2019.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/302987/1/CRLP201277-19-16-10-2019.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. However, to furnish a local surety is not feasible since the petitioner is from Gulbarga.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2018) ACR 178 has held that conditions for grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance thereby, making grant of bail illusory. The Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph-7 of the said judgment has observed as under:
“7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.”
8. The learned Sessions Judge has already directed the petitioner to execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties and also imposed other conditions. In view of the same, directing the petitioner to furnish a local surety may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Daksha Legal 