Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CR No. : 293/2026
Ali Hasan v. State
22.04.2026
Present: Sh. Gaurav, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
Sh. Alok Saxena, Ld. CPP for the State.
TCR has been received. Submissions heard.
By way of the present revision petition, the
accused/revisionist Ali Hasan is challenging the order dated
13.04.2026 passed by Ld. Reliever JMFC/Central whereby the
Ld. JMFC had rejected the surety bonds furnished on behalf of
the accused/revisionist Ali Hasan. In the petition, it is stated that
mother of the accused/revisionist Ali Hasan had furnished surety
bonds and had annexed an FDR in the sum of Rs.10,000/- but on
the basis of verification report, the surety bonds were rejected by
the Ld. JMFC.
Notice of the petition was given to the Ld. CPP for
the State who submitted that appropriate orders as per law may
be passed.
Perusal of the file shows that the revisionist Ali
Hasan is an accused in FIR No. 128/2026, PS Wazirabad, U/s 25
of the Arms Act. Vide order dated 10.04.2026, the
accused/revisionist Ali Hasan was admitted to bail upon
furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one local
surety in the like amount. Seemingly, surety bonds on behalf of
the accused were furnished on 11.04.2026. One Noman had
signed the surety bonds. Alongwith the surety bonds, he
furnished a Term Deposit of Rs.10,000/- in his name. Direction
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
was given to the IO/SHO to verify the surety bonds.
On 13.04.2026, a report was filed by the IO that on
reaching the residence of the surety, surety Noman claimed
himself to be the father of accused Ali Hasan; the surety was
residing on rent for the last three years; the surety was not having
any ID proof of Delhi; his ID proof of U.P. was obtained; ID
proof of his wife was also obtained. The IO reported that at the
time of arrest, accused Ali Hasan had disclosed the name of his
father as Rashid whereas surety Noman claimed accused Ali
Hasan to be his son which creates suspicion. The IO further
opined that since surety was not having any ID proof of Delhi
and was staying on rent, the surety bond should not be accepted.
In
Ajay Verma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2017 SCC
OnLine DEL 12747, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi delved at
length on the plight of under trial prisoners who were unable to
secure release despite being granted bail due to various reasons
including financial inability of their relatives to furnish surety
bonds. The Hon’ble Court directed that local sureties shall not be
insisted upon in case is where the under trial are from places
other than Delhi. It was also observed that since the Court insist
on production of property documents, it becomes very difficult
for the accused to secure release.
In the instant case, the IO had verified the identity
and residential address of surety Noman. During arguments, Ld.
Counsel for the accused/revisionist Ali Hasan submitted that
Noman was the surrogate father of accused Ali Hasan. Merely
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
because, surety Noman had claimed accused Ali Hasan to be his
son which was not the case, it was not a ground for rejection of
the bail bonds. The Ld. JMFC could have put relevant questions
to the surety in this respect. Surety Noman had also furnished a
Term Deposit in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to show his solvency.
Accordingly, the order dated 13.04.2026
(inadvertently mentioned as 13.04.2025 on the surety bonds) as
per which the surety bonds furnished by surety Noman were
rejected by Ld JMFC is set aside. The surety bonds are accepted
and attested.
The Ld. JMFC is directed to issue release warrants
of accused Ali Hasan forthwith. Further, notice be issued to the
Postmaster Chandni Chowk Post Office to mark a lien on the
Term Deposit No. 020215986584 of surety Noman.
The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
TCR/Remand papers be sent back.
Copy of the order be given dasti to the Ld. Counsel
for the accused/revisionist.
Copy of order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for
information and compliance.
(Nishant Garg)
ASJ-06 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
22.04.2026
-- 3 of 3 --