Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Syed Waqar Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State.
(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that by the order dated 02.02.2016 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.763/2016, the applicant was granted bail under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act relating to P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow. The applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to executing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. After the aforesaid order, the applicant moved an application before the court concerned for fixing the amount of personal bond and surety, but the learned Magistrate fixed the amount Rs.1,00,000/- for surety bonds. Feeling aggrieved by the fixation of the higher amount, the applicant approached the learned Session Judge by way of filing an application under Section 440 Cr.P.C., and sought reduction of the amount. The same was rejected on the ground that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not require any interference.
(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel that the amount of sureties fixed by the learned Magistrate is highly excessive and there are nine accused persons and as such it would not be possible for him to bring sureties having status of more than Rs.1,00,000/-. It is provided under Section 440(1) of the Cr.P.C. that the amount of surety bonds to be executed shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive. Sub-section (2) of Section 440 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the court of Session and the High Court may reduce the amount of surety bonds, but the learned Session Judge did not exercise his powers for reduction of the amount of surety bond.;