Factual Background 

In the Matter at hand Pradeep Kumar Das v. State of Odisha a criminal appeal brought under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Additional Sessions Judge’s decision directing the appellant to pay Rs. 20,000 as a fine and serve as a surety for the accused. In accordance with Sections 147, 148, 323, 294, and 149 of the Penal Code of 1860 as well as Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act of 1989, the appellant served as surety for four accused individuals. The Special Judge issued an order releasing the accused on bail with the requirement that they appear before the investigating officer each Saturday at 10:00 a.m.The Special Judge denied the appellant’s advance plea for discharge as surety and issued a non-bailable order for their production. The appellant was given an Rs. 20,000 fine by the ASG, and an arrest order was issued without the ability to post bail.

Analysis of Court Order 

Justice S.K. Sahoo of the Orissa High Court’s Single-Judge Bench granted the appeal and overturned the contested ruling because it had broken the law.  

The Court referenced Section 444 of the CrPC for the release of sureties, which states that to be freed from a bail bond, the surety must ask for it in court and have an arrest warrant issued for the defendant or the person who was released on bail. The bail bond should be revoked by the court, and the accused should be instructed to locate another suitable surety. The Magistrate must release the bail and request that the accused locate additional suitable sureties if the accused fails to do so. Taking a surety is done to make sure the accused will be present in court for the trial and judgement dates. The Court must document the justifications if the bond is forfeited. If the surety tries to cancel the bond, legal action should be taken against them.

The Court issued an order increasing criminal responsibility on a surety who had legitimate credentials after finding that the ASG had failed to understand the law. The Court decided that the Presiding Officer didn’t need to punish these people severely. Without consulting the appellant, the loss of the bail bond was against the law and was against natural justice principles. Based on the appellant’s honest behaviour, the court dismissed the Rs. 20,000 fine and conditional non-bailable order of arrest. Appeals were granted.

CASE NAME – Pradeep Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, Criminal Application No. 286 of 2003