The interpretation sought to be given by the Petitioners is misconceived and based upon incorrect reading of Section 88 Code of Criminal Procedure, which is reproduced thus:
88. Power to take bond for appearance.---When any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons or warrant, is present in such court, such officer may require such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his appearance in such court, or any other court to which the case may be transferred for trial
22. On reading of the above, it is obvious that Section 88 Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to seek bond for appearance from any person present in the court in exercise of its judicial discretion. The Section also provides that aforesaid power is not unrestricted and it can be exercised only against such persons for whose appearance or arrest the court is empowered to issue summons or warrants. The words used in the Section are "may require such person to execute a bond" and any person present in the court. The user of word "may" signifies that Section 88 Code of Criminal Procedure is not mandatory and it is a matter of judicial discretion of the court. The word "any person" signifies that the power of the court defined Under Section 88 Code of Criminal Procedure is not Accused specific only, but it can be exercised against other category of persons such as the witness whose presence the court may deem necessary for the purpose of inquiry or trial. Careful reading of Section 88 Code of Criminal Procedure makes it evident that it is a general provision defining the power of the court, but it does not provide how and in what manner this discretionary power is to be exercised. Petitioners are Accused of having committed non-bailable offences. Therefore, their case for bail falls within Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is the specific provision dealing with grant of bail to an Accused in cases of non-bailable offences. Thus, on conjoint reading of Section 88 and 437 Code of Criminal Procedure, it is obvious that Section 88 Code of Criminal Procedure is not an independent Section and it is subject to Section 437 Code of Criminal Procedure Therefore, I do not find merit in the contention that order of learned Special Judge refusing bail to the Petitioners is illegal being violation of Section 88 Code of Criminal Procedure.
31. We thus conclude that the word 'may' used in Section 88 confers a discretion on the Court whether to accept a bond from an Accused from a person appearing in the Court or not. The both Special Judge, C.B.I. as well as the High Court has given cogent reasons for not exercising the power Under Section 88 Code of Criminal Procedure We do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Special Judge, C.B.I. as well as the High Court in coming to the conclusion that Accused was not entitled to be released on acceptance of bond Under Section 88 Code of Criminal Procedure We thus do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 1445 of 2018)
Decided On: 23.02.2018
Pankaj Jain Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Citation:(2018) 5 SCC 743
