In the case of Moti Ram & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 August, 1978, the Supreme Court of India was confronted with a matter that highlighted the intersection of social justice, human rights, and the legal system. The case was presided over by Justice V.R. Krishnaiyer and Justice D.A. Desai.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Moti Ram, a mason by profession, was ordered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to produce a surety in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a condition for his bail. The petitioner, due to his economic status, was unable to procure the sum or manage a surety of sufficient prosperity. Further, the magistrate refused to accept the suretyship of the petitioner’s brother because he and his assets were in another district. This led to a situation where the petitioner, despite having been granted bail by the Supreme Court, was unable to secure his release due to the conditions imposed by the magistrate.
Issues Raised
The case raised three significant legal issues:
- Can the Court, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, release a person undergoing incarceration for a non-bailable offence either as an undertrial or as a convict who has appealed or sought special leave, on his own bond without sureties?
- If the Court decides to grant bail with sureties, what criteria should guide it in quantifying the amount of bail?
- Is it within the power of the court to reject a surety because he or his estate is situated in a different district or State?
Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Court observed that the bail system, as it stood, was unsatisfactory and needed drastic change. It noted that the system caused discrimination against the poor, as they were unable to furnish bail due to their economic conditions, while wealthier persons could secure their freedom because they could afford to furnish bail.
The Court held that social justice is the signature tune of the Indian Constitution and the little man in peril of losing his liberty is the consumer of social justice. It emphasized that the grant of bail can be stultified or made impossibly inconvenient and expensive if the court is powerless to dispense with surety or to receive an Indian bailor across the district borders as good, or if the sum is so excessive that to procure a wealthy surety may be both exasperating and expensive.
The Court directed the Magistrate to release the petitioner on his own bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. It also left open to the Parliament to consider whether in our socialist republic with social justice as its hallmark, monetary superstition, not other relevant considerations like family ties, roots in the community, membership of stable organizations should prevail or bail bonds to ensure that the ‘bailee’ does not flee justice.
This case is a landmark judgment that emphasized the importance of social justice and human rights in the context of the bail system. It highlighted the need for a more equitable system that does not discriminate against the poor and ensures that the right to liberty is not compromised due to economic constraints.