AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(2.)The accused is the appellant and assails the condition imposed by the learned additional sessions judge while invoking his jurisdiction under section 438 of the Criminal procedure Code and granting anticipatory bail to the accused, which condition was affirmed by the High Court. Be it be stated that an FIR having been lodged alleging commission of an offence by the appellant under section 406/420 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant moved the learned additional sessions judge, Delhi for grant of anticipatory bail invoking his jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Criminal procedure Code. By order dated 11-4-2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant would be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, but it should be subject to the deposit of a sum of Rs. 15 lacs in the form of FDR in the name of the trial court as a security for the deposit amount, which was allegedly settled between them. He accordingly directed that in the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that he surrenders the FDR for a sum of Rs. 15 lacs in the name of the trial court to the investigating officer/arresting officer who shall forward the same alongwith the challan, whenever it is filed in the court. The accused being aggrieved by the condition requiring to deposit the sum of Rs. 15 lacs, moved the High court. The High Court by the impugned order having affirmed the same, the accused has moved this Court.
(3.)The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is, that notwithstanding the fact that under section 438 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is empowered to include such conditions in such directions in the light of the fact of the particular case, as it may think fit, while invoking the power under sub-section (1) of section 438, but the expression "such condition" in sub-section (2) would not be unreasonable condition which would be difficult for the accused to comply with and imposition of an unreasonable condition would tantamount to refusal of invoking the discretion under sub-section (1) of section 438. According to learned counsel, the condition imposed in the case in hand, to deposit in the form of FDR Rs. 15 lacs is an impossible condition and must be held to be an arbitrary condition imposed by the court even after deciding to invoke the discretion under sub-section (1) of section 438. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi [jt 2000 (1) SC 166]. The learned counsel appearing for the state, on the other hand objected to the variation of the condition, particularly when according to the learned counsel the accused himself conceded to the amount being kept in deposit. From the order of the learned additional sessions judge, it transpires that the accused obviously conceded for such legal conditions to be imposed by the court for grant of anticipatory bail and there was no agreement on the part of the accused that he would deposit the sum of Rs. 15 lacs.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.