Delhi High Court - Orders
Akinola Timothy Olwasen vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 2 June, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1025/2022
AKINOLA TIMOTHY OLWASEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Girish Kumar Sharma and
Ms.Shreya Bhardwaj, Advocates
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.P. Singh, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
% 02.06.2022
CRL.M.A. 10246/2022
1. This is an application under Section 445 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to deposit cash in lieu of surety on behalf of the petitioner/applicant Akinola Timothy Olwasen.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted benefit of bail vide order dated 04.05.2022 on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. It is urged that petitioner has not been able to arrange a surety being a foreigner and as such cash be accepted in lieu of surety. Reliance is further placed on Zoro Daniel v. State decided by Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Sh. Suresh Kumar Kait on 22.02.2012, David Morrison v. State, Crl. Misc. App. 902/2020 decided on 13.01.2001.
3. The application is opposed by Ld. APP for the State.
4. It may be apt to refer to observations in Bail Application No. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:03.06.2022 18:33:11 1960/2020 decided on 11.04.2022 in Nastor Farirai Ziso Vs. NCB by this court:
"7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that applicant has contacted Embassy of Zimbabwe multiple times but has not been able to obtain surety and she does not know anyone in this country, who can discharge the obligation of surety.
It may be observed that it would be a negation of the principle of rule of law and violative of constitutional mandate and principles of human rights in case benefit of Section 445 Cr.P.C. is denied to a foreign national merely on the ground that a foreign national is likely to escape, if released on bail. This would lead to incarceration of accused for an unlimited period till conclusion of trial even despite being granted the discretion of bail by the courts. A mere apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the accused may flee the course of justice, cannot be the sole determinative factor for denying benefit of Section 445 Cr.P.C. without consideration of other circumstances and balancing factors in this regard. This apprehension may still theoretically persist even in a case where surety bond is furnished but the liability of surety is only to the extent of amount mentioned in the surety bond.
The aforesaid apprehension of the accused fleeing from the course of justice was appropriately kept in consideration while passing the orders on bail and imposing the other Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:03.06.2022 18:33:11 conditions on the petitioner of informing her address to NCB on being released on bail. The petitioner was also directed to report to NCB office once in a week till conclusion of trial and not to leave the limits of NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the trial court. The passport of the applicant is also stated to have been seized.
Further, denying deposit of cash in lieu of surety in all such cases may become punitive effecting the bifocal interest of justice to the individual involved as well as the society.
8. It may also be appropriate to notice the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in "Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor" 1978 AIR SC 429 as under:-
"Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Art. 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community." It was further held that "deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring, must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of society, specified in the Constitution. ""
5. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner who is just aged about 22 years and a foreign national, cannot be forced to undergo incarceration till the conclusion of trial merely because he is unable to furnish a local surety bond.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner be released on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:03.06.2022 18:33:11 bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and deposit of cash of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of surety bond to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. To allay any apprehension on the part of the prosecution, prior to release, the address of the petitioner shall also be verified by learned Trial Court. The petitioner is also directed to intimate learned Trial Court as well as concerned Police Station in case of any change of address.
The order dated 04.05.2022 stands modified to aforesaid extent. However, the other terms and conditions mentioned therein shall remain the same.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
A copy of the order be forwarded to learned Trial Court and Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
JUNE 2, 2022/ik Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:03.06.2022 18:33:11