Moti Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) | Bail Without Unaffordable Surety Explained

Case 11 of 30 in Law Easy's Supreme Court criminal procedure series. Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court of India (Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer), decided August 1978. FACTS A poor mason had been granted bail by the Supreme Court, but the Chief Judicial Magistrate demanded a surety of Rs 10,000 that he could not afford. His brother offered to stand surety, but the Magistrate refused because the brother and his property were in another district. WHAT THE COURT HELD The word bail includes release on a person's own bond, with or without sureties. The bond amount must be fixed with regard to the accused's means, not only the seriousness of the offence, and a surety cannot be rejected merely because he or his property is in another district or State. The Court ordered release on his own bond. CURRENT LAW B.N.S.S. Section 2(1)(b), (d) and (e) define bail, bail bond and bond. Section 484 requires bond amounts to be reasonable, and Section 478 protects indigent persons in bailable cases, with failure to furnish a bail bond within a week a ground to presume indigence. WATCH MORE All 30 cases in order (playlist): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYOVyhaD5Gdw Complete lecture with case-wise chapters (1 hr 52 min): https://youtu.be/xrBwaWooHmg Previous case (Case 10): Paramvir Singh Saini v Baljit Singh (2020) - https://youtu.be/SzQQ1EYErCM Next case (Case 12): Gurcharan Singh v State (Delhi Administration) (1977) - https://youtu.be/gJshbndBxXg Notes and resources: https://www.thelaweasy.com Useful for LL.B., CLAT PG, UGC NET Law and Judiciary exam preparation. This video is for education only and is not legal advice. #LawEasy #MotiRam #BailLaw