Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mona Sharma Alias Mona Beri vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038673
CRM-M-13782-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:038673
139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13782-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.03.2024
Mona Sharma @ Mona Beri
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Angad Parmar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
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
04.07.2023, vide which, while granting regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.115 dated 23.09.2022 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section
13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at
Police Station Navi Baradari, 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
04.07.2023 and ordered to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00 lacs with
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038673
2024:PHHC:038673
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.
3. Notice of motion.
4. At this stage, on asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038673
2024:PHHC:038673
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
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.10.00 lacs 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 04.07.2023 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.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
18.03.2024 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
