Delhi High Court
Ravinder Singh Thakur vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 August, 2008
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. 2698/2008
% DATE OF DECISION : 22nd AUGUST, 2008
Ravinder Singh Thakur ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manu Sharma , Advocate
versus
State of NCT of Delhi ....Respondent
Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State.
Mr. A. Aggarwal, Advocate for the
Complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may No
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 440 (2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for reduction of surety amount of Rs. 50 lacs as stipulated in the order dated 5th August, 2008 whereby the Petitioner has been directed to furnish two sureties of a sum of Rs. 50 lacs.
2. Section 440 reads as follows:
"440. Amount of bond and reduction thereof.-(1) The amount of every bond executed under this chapter Page 1 of 2 shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.
(2) The High Court or Court of Session may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced."
3. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Bank as well as the State. I am of the view that the surety asked to be furnished by the Trial Court is rather excessive.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the Petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. However, the Petitioner shall surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer, against receipt. The learned counsel for the Petitioner says that, in fact, Petitioner's passport is already in the possession of the Investigating Officer. If that is so, then the IO shall retain the passport during the pendency of proceedings before the trial court.
5. With these observations, the present petition is allowed. Order dasti.
August 22, 2008 MANMOHAN, J.
rb
Page 2 of 2