Punjab-Haryana High Court
Grant Alan Easton And Another vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh on 25 November, 2011
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
CRM No.52645 of 2011 in
CRM No.M-23087 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.52645 of 2011 in
CRM No.M-23087 of 2011
Date of decision:25.11.2011
Grant Alan Easton and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
Present: Mr. T.T.P. Singh, Advocate
for the applicants-petitioners.
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate
for U.T. Chandigarh.
*****
M.M.S.Bedi,J. (ORAL)
Vide order dated 14.09.2011, the petitioners have been granted concession of bail and ordered that they would be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds for a some of ` 1 lac each with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
In the instant application, the prayer has been made for modification of the order dated 14.09.2011, praying that the condition furnishing local surety be dispensed with.
Learned counsel for U.T. has opposed this prayer relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh Mann Versus Harbhajan Singh Bajwa AIR 2001 (SC) 43, laying down that it is not permissible for a Court under the cloak of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to review a judgment or order. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the CRM No.52645 of 2011 in CRM No.M-23087 of 2011 -2- respondent/U.T. The petitioners are residents of Australia. In Shokhista Versus State 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 636 and Agali E.Samki Versus State (NCT of Delhi) 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 759, the foreign national had been allowed bail on furnishing personal bond with cash security as he has not been able to produce his local surety. So far as, the objection of Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate is concerned in this context, reference can be made to statutory provision under Section 445 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:
"Deposit instead of recognizance:- When any person is required by any Court or officer to execute a bond with or without sureties, such Court or officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the Court or officer may fix in lieu of executing such bond."
A perusal of the above said provision permits the Court to pass an order to permit the petitioner to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory note to such amount as the Court may consider, in case a person is required to execute a bond with or without surety for his appearance. Such deposit is not permitted, where a person is required to furnish a bond for good behaviour. In the exercise of power under Section 445 Cr.P.C. read with power of High Court under Section 440 (2) Cr.P.C. and taking into consideration the circumstances that the petitioners are foreign nationals, whose passports have already been taken into custody by the police and are in possession of the Court, chances of petitioners absconding being remote, the order dated 14.09.2011 can be modified.
It is ordered that petitioners will furnish bail bonds/personal bonds for a sum of ` 1 lac and would deposit a sum of ` 1 lac each with the trial Court as surety for their not absconding during the pendency of the trial.
CRM No.52645 of 2011 in CRM No.M-23087 of 2011 -3- They will furnish an undertaking that they will not leave Chandigarh without the prior permission of the Court. In case, the petitioners move an application for leaving Chandigarh uptill Delhi, said application will be allowed. They will leave their local address to be verified by the local police frequently.
The petitioners will not travel beyond Delhi.
The amount will remain deposit with the Court subject to the final decision of the Court.
Disposed of.
November 25, 2011 (M.M.S. BEDI) harjeet JUDGE