Gujarat High Court
Jani Yoginiben Kumarbhai & vs State Of Gujarat on 12 February, 2013
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
JANI YOGINIBEN KUMARBHAIV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) R/CR.MA/2400/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2400 of 2013 ================================================================ JANI YOGINIBEN KUMARBHAI & ORS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================================ Appearance: MR PRATIK B BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Applicants MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI Date : 12/02/2013 ORAL ORDER
1 Heard Mr. Pratik B Barot, learned Advocate for the applicants and Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP, for the respondent State. RULE. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1- State.
2. By way of the present Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants - original accused Nos. 2 to 4 have challenged one of the conditions imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, vide order dated 5.2.2013, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.58 of 2013, by which the present applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each with the concerned Magistrate Court and have prayed to delete the said condition being Condition No.4 in the impugned order.
3 It is the case of the prosecution that the applicants accused are running a firm in the name and style of Yogi Corporation and a written contract was entered into between the applicants and complainant for the construction of a green house for a amount of Rs. 48,99,520/- and the work should be completed within the prescribed time limit. It is the further case of the prosecution that the applicants have failed to comply with the said agreement and therefore committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thereafter, the applicants filed an application under Section-438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana and prayed to release them on anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the application filed by the applicants, vide order dated 05.2.2013 and released the applicants on anticipatory bail on certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions imposed by the Sessions Judge is directing the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each with the concerned Magistrate Court within a period of three day from the date of passing of the said order.
4. Mr. Pratik B Barot, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has materially erred in imposing the condition of depositing the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each- while releasing the applicants on anticipatory bail. He further submitted that the said condition is contrary to the decisions rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court as well as this Court. He further submitted that directing to deposit a huge amount with regard to the FIR registered at CR No. I-135 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC is arbitrary, unjust and reasonable. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Ramathal & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police & Anr., as reported at (1009) 12 SCC 721 and in the case of Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, as reported at JT 2002 (1) SC 291 as well as a decision of this Court in the case of Bhikhabhai Udesinh Darbar vs. State of Gujarat, as reported at 1998 (1) GLH 22 and requested to allow the present Application and to delete the Condition No.4 imposed by the learned Sessions Court, by which the learned Sessions Judge has directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- each with the concerned Magistrate Court while granting anticipatory bail to them.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP, appearing on behalf of respondent-State, has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that, the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Court cannot be said to be unjust, arbitrary or unreasonable and that the condition of depositing of Rs. 5,00,000/- each by the applicants imposed by the learned Sessions Court while releasing the applicants on anticipatory bail is just and proper and no interference is warranted in the impugned order and requested to dismiss the present application.
6. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicants submitted an application before the learned Sessions Judge to release them on anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR, being C.R. No. I-135 of 2012 registered with Langnanj Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and while releasing the applicants on anticipatory bail, the learned Sessions Judge has imposed several conditions and one of the conditions being Condition No.4 directing the applicants to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- each with the concerned Magistrate court, which is challenged by the applicants herein. As such, the controversy raised in the present Application is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in the case of Mahersingh vs. P.B. Poddar, reported at 2004 (4) GLR 3332, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi, as reported in (2000) 2 SCC 66 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amarjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi (supra) wherein it is specifically observed that such a condition for cash security while releasing the accused on bail cannot be imposed.
7 Identical question came to be considered by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.355/2012 and similar condition imposed by the learned Trial Court while releasing the accused on bail has been deleted by this Court by observing that such a condition of depositing of cash amount while releasing the accused on bail, cannot be imposed. In the aforesaid decision, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of this Court as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Jain (Supra) as well as in the case of Amarjit Singh (Supra).
8 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court referred to here-in-above, in my opinion, Condition No. 4 imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, dated 05.2.2013 insofar as directing the applicants to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- each with the concerned Magistrate Court while releasing them on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR, being C.R. No.I-135 of 2012 registered with Langnanj Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections-406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained and the said condition deserves to be deleted. Hence, the following order is passed:
9. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is allowed.
Condition No.4 imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, vide order dated 5.2.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 58 of 2013, directing the applicants to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- each, with the concerned Magistrate Court while releasing the applicants on anticipatory bail, is hereby deleted and rest of the order and the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge stand as it is and the applicants shall comply with the same.
9 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) pnnair Page 6 of 6