Delhi District Court
Unknown vs M/S S E Investment Ltd on 19 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
CR No. 39 of 2019 Digitally signed
by SURESH
Satinder Kaur Sawhney SURESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
W/o Sh. Bhupinder Singh Sawhney GUPTA 2019.11.22
12:51:29
R/o J3/67, DDA Flats, Kalkaji +0530
New Delhi110019 ..........Revisionist
Versus
M/s S E Investment Ltd
At: S547, 2nd Floor
School Block, Main Road
Shakarpur, Delhi110092 ..........Respondent
Instituted on : 01.10.2019
Argued on : 18.11.2019
Decided on : 19.11.2019
ORDER
1 The revisionist has impugned the order dated 3.9.2019 passed by Ld. Trial Court vide which she is directed to furnish personal bond with surety bond of Rs. 5 lakh each.
2 The revision has been filed on the grounds that the bail bond is required for the presence of the person during the course of trial. The amount of bail bond should not be excessive. The amount of bail bond should not be excessive even if the cheque amount is on the higher side. She is unable to Satinder Kaur Sawhney v. M/s SE Investment Ltd. CR No. 39 of 2019 1/3 furnish the bail bond to the tune of Rs. 5 lakh. The bail order becomes meaning less in case she is unable to furnish the bail bond. Hence, this revision.
3 Notice of the revision is given to the respondent. 4 Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the amount of the bail bond is on the higher side which the revision is unable to furnish as she is home maker. He further submitted that the amount of bail bond be reduced so that the revisionist can enjoy the benefit of bail order. 5 Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the cheque amount is of Rs. 1.9 crores so the Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the order. 6 Heard and perused the record.
7 Sec. 440 CrPC says that the amount of every bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive. 8 The revisionist has been summoned for the offence u/s 138 NI Act. The amount of cheque in question is 1.9 crores. The offence is bailable. The revisionist is admitted to bail on her furnishing personal bond with surety bond of Rs. 5 lakh each.
9 The higher amount of bail bond is probably fixed by keeping in Satinder Kaur Sawhney v. M/s SE Investment Ltd. CR No. 39 of 2019 2/3 mind the cheque amount. The purpose of taking the personal bond and surety bond is that the revisionist should regularly appear in the court and the trial should not be hampered. The amount of the bail bond should be reasonable so that one is able to furnish the personal and the surety bond. A person will not be able to furnish the bail bond of an excessive amount. A person will not be able to reap the benefits of bail order in case he/she is unable to furnish the bail bond.
10 To my mind, the amount of personal bond and surety bond is on higher side and same should be reduced.
11 Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of personal and surety bond is reduced. The order dated 3.9.2019 is modified. The revisionist is directed to furnish personal bond with surety bond of Rs. 75,000/ each. The revisionist petition is disposed off. 12 TCR, if any, alongwith copy of this order be sent back. 13 Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the open court on 19th November, 2019 (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA) Additional Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South East, New Delhi Satinder Kaur Sawhney v. M/s SE Investment Ltd. CR No. 39 of 2019 3/3