Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR versus BALCHAND @ BALIAY
- Decided
- 20 September 1977
- Judges listed
- V.R. KRISHNA IYER
- Disposal
- Granted
Citations
- Official
- [1978] 1 S.C.R. 535 · 1977 INSC 180
- Also cited as
- (1977) 4 SCC 308
- AIR 1977 SC 2447
- (1977) SCC(CRI) 594
- MANU/SC/0152/1977
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
KRISHNA IYER, J. The petitioner moves for bail having surrendered after leave was granted to the State to file an appeal against acquittal by the High Court.
p. 535, margin H
li36 [l 978] 1
p. 536
The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. 'We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
p. 536, margin A
It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while be has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the cour~; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desparatc character or unsocial elePJwnt who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family tu maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu clo not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. AL the same time any possibility of the abscondencc or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report him<clf before the notice station at Baren once every fortnight.
p. 536, margin B
'J'hs petitioner will be released. un bail on his entering into a bond of his own and one surety for Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barcn. While the system of pecuniary hail has a tradi'.ion behind it, the time has come for rethinking on the subject. It may well be that in most cases not monetary suretyship but under! aking by relations of the petitioner or organisation to which he belongs may be better and more socially relevant. Even so, in this case we stick to the practice and direct the furnishing pf one surety for Rs. 5,000/-.
p. 536, margin C
:\pplicatiOn for intcrvl)ntion al/:J\Vcd. S.R !Jail gr({nted
p. 536, margin E