Shri Chandrakant Dharni Bharmaji vs The Special Executive ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 944 Bom

JUDGMENT

J.G. Chitre, J.

1. Ms. Desai submitted that the Petitioner was directed to furnish a bond of good behaviour under the provisions of Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in context with Sub-sections (a) and (g). She further submitted that the said direction was by all means illegal because when the said direction was given, the petitioner was in jail and had no opportunity of committing any activities which are contemplated by any sub section of Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code). Mr. Saste, A.P.P. opposed the prayer in the petition.

2. This Court perused two orders which were passed by the Additional Sessions Judges, Pune. One was passed on 7.5.1987 and the other was passed on 15.7.1987. The order dated 7.5.1987 shows that without application of mind without discussing the merits or demerits of all the contentions raised by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to direct the petitioner to furnish the bond of good behaviour by dismissing his revision petition. The other order shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was unable to find any written order directing the petitioner to furnish a bond of good behaviour. This is all something beyond legitimate understanding. Every revision application has to be decided by discussing the points urged before the Sessions Court. There has to be a discussion and the conclusions drawn by the Sessions Court are to be justified by good reasons. The order which has been passed on 7.5.1987 is void of any discussion and reasons. It is surprising to note as to how the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in directing the petitioner to furnish a bond of good behaviour. The practice of modifying the order by furnishing the bond or reducing the amount of bond without giving reasons therefor is not proper and cannot be accepted in domain of administration of justice. The said act of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is expanded by further order passed by another learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15.7.1987 which shows that he was unable to find out any order in writing directing furnishing of such bond.

3. When a citizen is directed to furnish a bond of good behaviour it indirectly puts a stigma on his or her character. Such order are not to be viewed lightly in a democratic country where there is rule of administration of justice. None can be asked to furnish bond of good behaviour without an adjudication. Whenever a proceeding is initiated against such a person he is to be given an opportunity of showing cause as to why he should not be directed to furnish a bond of good behaviour and when that is not done, the entire proceedings needs to be quashed which has resulted in such an order which cannot be said to be legal.

4. A person cannot be asked to furnish a bond of good behaviour only because two trials alleging that he committed the murder are pending in Court. No person can be asked to furnish bond of good behaviour when he has been acquitted in one of such trials and one is pending in Court. He has to be adjudicated as guilty by a trial conducted in accordance with provisions of law. Even evidence has to be adduced for proving that the person is of bad behaviour or behaviour detrimental to society at large and his behaviour is likely to cause a breach of public peace or his being at large is detrimental to the welfare of the society. Thus, petition stands allowed. The directions given to the petitioner for furnishing the bond of good behaviour passed by Special Executive Magistrate, Crimes, Pune which has been modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by his order dated 7.5.1987 stands quashed. However, it is made clear that the Special Executive Magistrate, Crimes, Pune is at liberty to initiate another proceeding if it is needed but it should be strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.