Gujarat High Court
Anindo vs State on 23 April, 2010
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/22672010/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2267 of 2010
=========================================
ANINDO
ACHINTO BENERJI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
NARENDRA L JAIN with MR. S.V.RAJU, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR. K.L.PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 23/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP Mr. K.L.Pandya waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.
The present application has been filed by the Applicant accused for for the prayer that condition no. 2 imposed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 192 of 2010 dated 23.2.2010 granting regular bail to the Applicant may be deleted. A copy of the order is produced at Annexure-A The Applicant accused is charged with having committed offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code for which FIR being I-CR No. 4 of 2009 has been registered with CID Crime Gandhinagar Zone Police Station.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.V.Raju appearing with learned Advocate Mr. N.L.Jain for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has been released on bail by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Ahmedabad as per the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 192 of 2010. However, the condition no. 2, which is imposed, to which he pointedly referred, is erroneous. He submitted that as can be seen from the said condition, the Applicant is ordered to be released subject to the condition that the other co-accused, who is the Applicant in Criminal Application No. 171 of 2010 (Pratik Rameshchandra Shah) shall deposited the amount of Rs.7 crore before he bas been released on bail. He therefore submitted that such a condition could not be imposed for releasing the petitioner that the other co-accused shall deposit the amount, the release of the present Applicant accused is dependent upon the other co-accused depositing the amount. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raju therefore submitted that such a condition may be deleted.
In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raju referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2009) 13 SCC 769, wherein it has been observed in similar circumstances that while granting the anticipatory bail, the order was passed that subject to deposit of Rs.15 lacs in form of FDR a s security for the deposit amount the Applicant may be released.
Similarly, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raju referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sandip Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2002) 2 SCC 66 and submitted that it has also been observed in this judgment that such a condition of bail granted on the condition of payment of the amount is unreasonable.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raju also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of U.Palaniappan and Another v. Sub-Inspector of Police, (2005) 10 SCC 464, where also, the order for anticipatory bail was passed subject to depositing the amount of Rs.10 lacs and 5 lacs and the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that such condition was onerous.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raju has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Munish Bhasin and others v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, (2009) 4 SCC 45. In this judgment also, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed referring to the conditions to be imposed that harsh, onerous or excessive conditions will frustrate the very object of anticipatory bail and such condition could not have been imposed.
Learned APP Mr. K.L.Pandya however submitted that there is a prima facie case suggesting the involvement of the Applicant as it is stated in the FIR and other papers to which he referred including the other grounds and submitted that he was Director and cannot escape from the liability.
In view of the submissions, it is required to be considered whether the condition no. 2 imposed while releasing the Applicant on bail by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 192 of 2010 dated 23.2.2010 is justified, which reads as follows:
2. Subject to condition that the applicant of Cri. Misc. Application No.171/10 namely Pratik Rameshchandra Shah, shall pay the first installment of Rs.7 crores, at once before he has been released on bail.
As it transpires, the condition is imposed that the other co-accused, who had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 171 of 2010 (Pratik Rameshchandra Shah) shall deposit first the installment of Rs.7 crores at once before he has been released. In other words, this condition with regard to deposit of the amount not by the Applicant but by the other co-accused and the release of the Applicant on bail is made conditional or dependent upon the amount to be deposited by the co-accused, is not warranted or justified. It is not the case that any undertaking or purshis was given by the present Applicant or the co-accused. However, there was no such undertaking or purshis voluntarily given while releasing the Applicant on bail. It is also stated at the bar that Pratik Rameshchandr Shah, the other co-accused of Criminal Misc. Application No. 171 of 2010 had passed a purshis admitting that he would accept the liability.
It is in these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the order granting the bail with such a condition would not be justified. Therefore, the present application for deletion of the aforesaid condition deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed.
The order granting bail to the Applicant as per the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 192 of 2010 by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Ahmedabad, is maintained. However, the condition no.2 imposed for the purpose of such release of the Applicant shall stand deleted, and accordingly, the present application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct service permitted.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti* Top