Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) "Whether in the case of jumping over bail, condition to deposit the amount of personal bond by the accused can be imposed at the time of granting fresh bail?", is the main point that falls for consideration in this bail application moved under Section 439 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr. P.C.'), in which it is prayed that condition No. 1 imposed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Agra in the bail order dated 20.3.2009, passed in Special Session Trial No. 49 of 2005, arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2004, State v. Ninua and others, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3 (1) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act, P. S. Tajganj, Agra be quashed.
(2.) HEARD, Sri R. K. Rathore, advocate appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State. From the record, it is revealed that the applicant Radhey was accused in Case Crime No. 106/2004 under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3 (1) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act, P. S. Tajganj, Agra. F.I.R. of that case was lodged by Bablu S/o Moti Lal. Alongwith the applicant, three more persons, namely Kalicharan alias Kalua, Ninua and Kaushal were also made accused in that case. On submission of charge-sheet, the accused persons were facing trial in S.S.T. No. 14 of 2005 in the Court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Agra. From the impugned order dated 20.3.2009, passed in aforesaid special session trial, it appears that the applicant Radhey, who was on bail, became absent on 9.8.2005. Therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued against him and notice to the sureties were also issued. The applicant was arrested on 24.2.2009. He moved bail application before the court below, which was allowed by the impugned order on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount. Simultaneously, a condition to deposit in Court the amount (Rs. 25,000) of personal bond was also imposed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Agra. This condition is being sought to be quashed by the applicant by means of this application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at the time of granting fresh bail, the court below could not impose the condition to deposit the amount of earlier executed personal bond, without following the procedure provided under Section 446, Cr. P.C. and hence condition No. 1 of the impugned order directing the applicant to deposit the amount of personal bond should be quashed, so that the applicant may come out from jail after executing fresh personal bond and furnishing surety bonds in pursuance of that order.
(3.) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that special procedure is provided in Section 446, Cr. P.C. to recover the amount of personal bond, if the said bond is forfeited and given go-bye to that procedure, the amount of personal bond cannot be recovered through back-door by imposing condition of depositing the amount of personal bond at the time of granting fresh bail to the accused. The application has been opposed by learned A.G.A. contending that the applicant was misusing the liberty of bail and hence the court below did not commit any illegality in imposing the condition to deposit the amount of personal bond at the time of granting fresh bail to him.;