NAME: SAYYAD SHOAIB ALI

PRN : 20010422122
SEC : BBA LLB
SUBJECT : CRIMINAL LAW PRACTICE

TUTORIAL II

CASE COMMENT

Moti Ram & Ors vs State Of M.P (1978 AIR 1594)

INTRODUCTION

The landmark case of Moti Ram & Ors. vs State Of MP precisely and efficiently talks about the wide
concept of bail under Cr.P.C this case comment contains the the FACTS, ISSUE Court's remark to this
matter, and my opinion.

Background:

The case of Moti Ram & Ors vs State Of M.P originated in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The Chief
Judicial Magistrate ordered that a surety of Rs 10,000 be produced after the Supreme Court decided
to release the petitioner-appellant "on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate."
However, when the petitioner presented it, the magistrate refused to accept the surety-ship of the
petitioner's brother because he and his asset were in another district.

In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the amount was huge and refused to grant the mason bail
for two reasons:

Mason was unable to produce such a large sum of money.

Because the petitioner's brother and his assets were in a different district, the magistrate issued an
odd order refusing to accept him as a surety

(Surety bond is basically a bond in which the accused has to produce one or more persons taking
responsibility for the appearance of the accused at a later date in the court after getting released and
if this does not happen, the person taking responsibility would have to give money since he failed to
fulfil the condition.)

Issues:

1. A person in custody for a non-bailable offense who is either awaiting trial or has filed an appeal
may be released by the court on his own bond without sureties.

2. What criteria should the court use to determine the appropriate bail amount if it decides to impose
sureties as bail?

3. If a surety might be rejected by the court if his or her estate is located in another district?

RULES:

the court noted that a convict (someone who has been found guilty) may be released on his own
bond without sureties by the court of appeal.
It cannot be the case that a defendant who is still awaiting trial has a worse case than a convicted
person or that the court has more discretion to grant freedom when guilt is confirmed.
Relevant is the applicant's guilt status, not the court's standing (relevant).
It is a reduction ad absurd that a guilty man may request judicial freedom without sureties but an
undertrial cannot (reduction to absurdity)

Factors affect when sureties should be requested and how much should be required. Nonetheless,
financially impoverished Indian males, young people, people with disabilities, and women are
vulnerable categories, and judges should be lenient in releasing them on their own recognizance with
whatever reasonable conditions they may have. The Court decided that bail encompasses both
releases on one's own bond, with or without sureties since there was considerable uncertainty
regarding whether bail under various provisions of bail covered both releases on one's own bond with
sureties or without sureties.

The court in this case noted that incarceration prior to trial has serious repercussions because
defendants, who are deemed innocent unless proven guilty, are subjected to psychological and
physical restrictions as inmates, and occasionally even harsher ones than those imposed on those
who have been found guilty.

Decision:

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that confessions made by an accused during the investigation
stage were not admissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court
held that such confessions were often made under coercion or inducement and were not voluntary.

The Court further observed that the investigation stage was a crucial stage in a criminal trial, and the
accused had the right to consult with a lawyer and have a fair trial. The Court emphasized that the
rights of the accused should be protected during the investigation stage and that the investigation
should be conducted fairly and impartially.

The Court also laid down certain guidelines to ensure that the rights of the accused were protected
during the investigation stage. These guidelines included the right of the accused to be informed of
their right to consult with a lawyer, the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of
arrest, and the right to be examined by a medical practitioner.

The Court also held that any confession made by an accused during the investigation stage could be
used only to corroborate evidence that had already been obtained independently. The Court further
stated that the trial court should conduct a careful examination of the evidence produced by the
prosecution and should not rely solely on the confessions made by the accused during the
investigation stage. The judge also noted that A defendant who is imprisoned loses his work, if he has
one, is unable to contribute to the development of his defence, and his confinement places a financial
burden on his family's innocent members.

The magistrate's demand for sureties—people with property—from his own area was insulting, the
court said, and it was shocking to require the petitioner—a mason—to provide sureties for Rs 10,000.
Article 350 prohibits representation to any authority, including a court, for redress of grievances in
any language used in the Union of India, the court noted, noting that no such statute specifies sureties
from outside or non-regional language applications. Equality before the law indicates that, unless
there is a legal statute to the contrary, even a valuate or affirmation made in any State language in
accordance with that State's laws must be recognized throughout India's territory.

Implications:

The court determined that bail covers both release on one's own bond and release with or without
sureties, and that the timing and amount of sureties should be sought depending on several factors.
The court further ordered the magistrate to release the petitioner on his own bond in the amount of
Rs 1,000. It is not within the court's authority to reject a surety because he or his estate is located in a
different district. As requested by the counsel, the petition was granted, and the petitioner was
released.

My Opinion:

According to me, the decision in the case had significant implications from a CrPC perspective. The
decision has helped to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected during the investigation
stage and that evidence produced in a criminal trial is obtained independently.

If a millionaire and a mason were treated equally, terrible injustice would inevitably result. Geographic
prejudice in the legal system also undermines the concept of equal protection under the law on Indian
soil.
All the citizen in this nation abide all the law then it must be the responsibility of the court to treat
each person equally and distribute the justice equally even to a millionarie or to a mason as well. It
does not have any right to compel any person who doe not have means to cover up the bond it must be
the duty of the court to look upon the matter accordingly.

The Court while relying on the judgment in Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1978) 4
SCC 47, quoted that,
“It is interesting that American criminological thinking and research
had legislative response and the Bail Reforms Act, 1966 came into
being. The then President, Lyndon B. Johnson made certain
observations at the signing ceremony:
Today, we join to recognize a major development in our system of
criminal justice : the reform of the bail system.
This system has endued-archaic, unjust and virtually unexamined -
since the Judiciary Act of 1789.
The principal purpose of bail is to insure that an accused person will
return for trial if he is released after arrest.
How is that purpose met under the present system? The defendant
with means can afford to pay bail. He can afford to buy his freedom.
But the poorer defendant cannot pay the price. He languishes in jail
weeks, months and perhaps even years before trial.
He does not stay in jail because he is guilty.
He does not stay in jail because any sentence has been passed.
He does not stay in jail because he is any More likely to flee before
trial.
He stays in jail for one reason only-because he is poor . . . .”
Overall, the case of Moti Ram & Ors vs State Of M.P has set an important precedent for the
admissibility of evidence in criminal trials and has emphasized the importance of protecting the rights
of the accused during the investigation stage.