Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mona Sharma @ Mona Beri vs State Of Punjab on 18 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051907
2024:PHHC:051907
CRM-M-13772-2024 --1--
127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13772-2024
DATE OF DECISION:-18.04.2024
Mona Sharma @ Mona Beri ...Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent..
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:
Mr. Angad Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.
******
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read
with Section 440 Cr.P.C. for modification of the order dated 06.06.2023,
vide which, while granting regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.209 dated
08.08.2022 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of the
Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police
Station Division No.8, District Jalandhar, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jalandhar ordered to furnish bail bonds to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac
with one surety.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner was involved in the FIR (supra) and he was granted regular bail
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated
06.06.2023 and ordered to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00 lacs
with one surety in the like amount. He further contends that the petitioner is
a widow and is unable to furnish bail bonds of such an excessive amount,
due to which she is languishing in jail. Learned counsel, thus, prays that the
amount of Rs.1.00 lac to be furnished as bail bonds may be reduced to some
lesser amount.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051907
2024:PHHC:051907
CRM-M-13772-2024 --2--
3. Notice of motion.
4. At this stage, on asking of the Court, Mr. Kewal Singh, Addl.
A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and does not
controvert the factual position, but contends that the learned Court below
rightly ordered to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00 lacs with one
surety.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the records of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the
petitioner is a widow and no other member is there in her family, this Court
deems fit to reduce the amount of Rs.1.00 lac to be furnished as bail bonds.
6. A similar issue was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
'Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka' 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 726
and this Court in 'Bhagat Singh v. State of Haryana' 2018 (2) RCR
(Criminal) 337, 'Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab' 2008 (22) RCR
(Criminal) 704, 'Angrej Singh v. State of Punjab' 2010 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 580 and 'Gopal Kaur v. State of Punjab' 2011 (6) RCR
(Criminal) 1394, wherein, the penalty imposed under Section 446 of
Cr.P.C. was reduced to 1/4th of the amount of surety bonds by holding that
the said bonds were on the higher side.
7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.3314 of
2024 (Ashok Sandeep Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh), decided on
15.03.2024, has held that the purpose of directing an accused who has been
released on bail to furnish surety is to ensure that the accused is present to
answer further proceedings including at the trial. Determining the amount of
surety at an unreasonably high amount effectively defeats the very purpose
of the grant of bail and infringes the right to life and personal liberty of the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051907
2024:PHHC:051907
CRM-M-13772-2024 --3--
accused protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, after considering the financial position of the accused and other facts,
reduced the amount of surety bonds from Rs.01.00 lac to Rs.25,000/-.
8. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and
the judgments referred to above, the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 is
upheld. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice
will be served if the amount of Rs.1.00 lac to be furnished as bail bonds as
ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar is reduced to
Rs.10,000/-.
9. Disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
18.04.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
