BHIKAM SINGH @ MANOJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. r/w Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed by and on behalf of petitioner Bhikam Singh @ Manoj who has been ordered to be released on bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur vide order dated 15.7.2004 in FIR No. 172/04 PS Sevar Distt. Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 379, 120-B, 392 and 328 IPC. This application seeks modification/deletion of certain conditions imposed in the aforesaid order.

(2.) The relevant facts are that one Ravi Kumar, the complainant was standing at old bus stand, Ghaziabad with an Indica Car No. DL-4CU-2867. 10 The petitioner along with two other hired the same for going to Agra. On the way to Agra made Ravi Kumar to smell an handkerchief which was be smeared with some intoxicating drug, as a result of which the driver fell unconscious. The petitioner and his companion threw him by road-side some where on the way and decamped with the car. The petitioner was arrested and the oar was recovered at his instance. The learned Magistrate rejected his bail application. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur vide aforesaid order granted him bail, but on several conditions mentioned in the order including the following three conditions: (a) that he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. one lac with five sureties in the sum of Rs. 20,000.00 each to the satisfaction of the lower court; (b) that two of the five sureties should be residents of the jurisdiction of the said court: (c) that the solvency of the sureties should be duly certified by the competent officer/Tehsildar and the same should be accompanied by documents I attested by the Tehsildar. Since the petitioner has no grievance with regard to other conditions imposed in bail order, they need not be mentioned here.

(3.) It may be stated at the out-set that it is well settled principle of law that the conditions for release of the accused on bail ought not to be too onerous so as to deprive him from being actually released on bail. The aforesaid three conditions appear to me to be not only onerous and unreasonable, but also unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears that the anxiety of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in imposing these conditions emanated from the nature and manner in which the to offences in question are alleged to have been committed. But that does not justify imposing such onerous conditions as are not in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and have the effect of depriving him of liberty of bail. Therefore, the aforesaid conditions cannot be sustained and deserve to be suitably modified/deleted. Sec. 439(1)(b) Cr.PC. is empowers this court to do so.