Delhi District Court
Pradeep Mittal vs M/S Yogshri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd on 14 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBIIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 39/2015
In the matter of :
Pradeep Mittal .......Petitioner
Versus
M/s Yogshri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. .......Respondent
Criminal Revision received on assignment on : 30.05.2015
Arguments heard on : 14.07.2015
Order announced on : 14.07.2015
ORDER:
1. The petitioner has preferred the present revision petition against the order dated 27.3.2015 passed by Ld. MM, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby a condition was imposed that prior to going out of India, the petitioner shall seek permission of the court. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lakh with a surety of the like amount vide order dated 08.04.2015 passed by Crl. Revision No.39/15 Page 1 of 3 Pradeep Mittal Vs. M/s Yogshri Chemicals Pvt Ltd.
trial court.
2. The petitioner has challenged these orders on the ground that no condition can be imposed while granting bail u/s 436 Cr.PC insofar as bailable offences are concerned. According to Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, a condition requiring the petitioner to seek permission of the court before going out of India could not have been imposed while granting bail u/s 436 Cr.PC. In support of his contention Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgment Sushil Suri Vs. State, Manu/DE/8761/2006. Sh. Deepak Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that conditions can be imposed even for the offences u/s 436 Cr.PC. According to him, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the trial court.
3. I have gone through the record. Petitioner, being a person accused of only bailable offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, has a right to be enlarged on bail. There is no discretion with the court enabling the court to grant or refuse bail. Thus, the trial court cannot impose any condition on the petitioner to seek permission of the court before leaving India. However, considering the facts and circumstances, petitioner Crl. Revision No.39/15 Page 2 of 3 Pradeep Mittal Vs. M/s Yogshri Chemicals Pvt Ltd.
shall inform the trial court in writing before he embarks on any foreign visit giving the date of departure and his tentative date of return as also broadly indicating the places of his stay abroad. Of course, if the petitioner does not appear on the date and time fixed by the trial court, then the provision of S. 436 (2) Cr.PC would come into play. For taking this view, I am supported with the judgment Sushil Suri (supra).
4. In these circumstances and for the abovesaid reasons, the condition requiring the petitioner to take permission of the court prior to going abroad is set aside and is replaced by the aforesaid direction of providing the information. The revision petition stands disposed of. A copy of the order be sent to trial court for information and the revision file be consigned to RecordRoom.
Announced today in open (Praveen Kumar) court on 14.07.2015. Special Judge, (PC Act), CBIIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Crl. Revision No.39/15 Page 3 of 3 Pradeep Mittal Vs. M/s Yogshri Chemicals Pvt Ltd. Crl. Revision No.39/15 Page 4 of 3 Pradeep Mittal Vs. M/s Yogshri Chemicals Pvt Ltd.