Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailashchandra Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2018
4 Cr. R.No.3622/2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K. AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No.3622/2017
Kailashchandra Garg and another
vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Kaustubh Pathak, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 22 /03/2018)
1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed against the order dated 26.8.2017 passed by 13 th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.296/2017, whereby the Court ordered the petitioners to furnish personal bond of Rs.One Crore with surety of like amount towards bail condition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore registered Crime No.256/2014 for offence under Sections 420 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners upon the complaint of Naresh Randhar. The petitioners moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid crime before the Sessions Court and later on before this Court, which were dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners filed S.L.P. (Cri.) No.9969/2016 and 9970/2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order 4 Cr. R.No.3622/2017 dated 21.2.2017 the Apex Court granted interim protection to the petitioners on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.One Crore each. However, during the pendency of the S.L.P., the Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore filed a supplementary charge sheet against the petitioners. Therefore, they appeared before the concerned Court and in compliance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, they have been released upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. One Crore. Thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court and it is now pending before the XIII Additional Sessions Court, Indore bearing Sessions Trial No.296/2017.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 28.7.2017 directed the petitioners to obtain regular bail from the competent Court, then the petitioners filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, which was allowed vide order dated 26.8.2017 and the petitioners were directed to furnish personal bond of Rs.One Crore with surety in the like amount and upon furnishing such personal bond and surety, they be released on bail. Being aggrieved by this impugned order of furnishing personal bond and surety bond of Rs.One Crore each, the petitioners have filed the present revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the amount of surety is exorbitant and unreasonable. The Hon'ble Apex Court ordered to release the petitioners on furnishing personal bond only and therefore, the personal bond was furnished. However, the 4 Cr. R.No.3622/2017 learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in issuing direction to execute the personal bond as well as surety bond of Rs. One Crore, which is not justified. While arguing, he has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 29.6.2017 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.5966/2017, in which, the Court granted bail to the other co- accused Ritesh Ajmera on executing a bond with two local sureties each for a sum of Rs. One lac. and this direction was issued in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Cri.) No.9969/2016 and 9970/2016. Under these circumstances, there is no justification for the order passed by the trial Court in demanding the surety of Rs.One Crore from the applicants.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent has opposed the prayer by contending that the trial Court had directed for furnishing of the surety bond of Rs.One Crore in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the S.L.P. Therefore, no interference is required in the matter.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order.
7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, enlarged the petitioners on bail. Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interim protection to the petitioners upon furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.One Crore and looking to the gravity of the offence, the trial Court directed the petitioners to furnish bail bond as 4 Cr. R.No.3622/2017 well as surety bond of Rs.One Crore. It is pertinent to note that, in compliance of the impugned order, they have furnished the personal bond as well as surety bond. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are not in a position to furnish personal as well as surety bond of Rs. One Crore. It is the duty of the Court to secure the presence of accused persons and looking to the nature of offence and other factors of the case the amount of surety are fixed. Hence, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error in fixing the personal as well as surety bond of Rs. One Crore. Thus no case is made out for interference in the impugned order, therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE moni Digitally signed by Moni Raju Date: 2018.03.22 14:27:03 +05'30'