Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Monu Nayyar vs State Of (Nct Of Delhi) on 23 September, 2019

            IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
      ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE­04 & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) ACT
        SOUTH EAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI

         CR No. 510/2019
         Monu Nayyar
         S/o Sh. Sukhdev Raj
         R/o D­220, Lajpat Nagar­I
         New Delhi­110024                                ..........Revisionist

                                            Vs.
        State of (NCT of Delhi)

        Sh. Sameer Ali
        S/o Sh. S M ali
        R/o D­6, THDC Colony
        Doon University Road
        Dehradun, Uttarkhand                              ..........Respondents


Instituted on        : 16.08.2019
Arguments heard on : 20.09.2019
Decided on         : 23.09.2019
                                    ORDER

1 The revisionist has impugned the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by Ld. Trial Court vide which revisionist has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,77,000/­ in the form of FDR within 30 days failing which interest @ 8 % would be charged.


2                The revision has been filed on the grounds that liberty was


CR No. 510 of 2019              Monu Nayyar v. & or.                      1/4

granted to him to approach the court concerned for the modification of the condition of the bail imposed vide order dated 26.08.2015. Hence this revision.

3 Notice of the revision is given to the respondents. 4 The facts of the case are like this. On 26.8.2015 the respondent no.2 was admitted to bail by Sh. Raj Kumar Tripathi, the then Ld. ASJ in bail application No. 3746 arising out of FIR No. 193/15, u/s 419/420 IPC, PS, Lajpat Nagar.. A condition was imposed upon the respondent no. 2 that he will deposit a sum of Rs. 5,77,000/­ in the form of FDR before the Trial court and deposition of the amount shall be subject to the outcome of the case.

5. The respondent no.2 has deposited the said amount in the court. The revisionist have moved an application for release of said amount. On 30.05.2018, the application was allowed and the amount was released to him on his furnishing bond of the like amount.

6. The said order was challenged by the respondent no.2 by filing the revision petition. On 20.05.2019, the order dated 30.05.2018 was set aside by Ld. District and Sessions Judge, South East, Saket, New Delhi with the liberty to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for the CR No. 510 of 2019 Monu Nayyar v. & or. 2/4 modification of the condition of the bail.

7. On 25.07.2019, the revisionist was directed by Trial Court to deposit the said amount in the court within 30days failing which interest @ of 8% will be charged.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. The Revisionist was aware of the condition of the bail. The respondent no.2 has complied with the bail order and deposited a sum of Rs.5,77,000/­ in the form of FDR in the court.

10. The order to release this amount in the favour of revisionist has been set aside by the revisional court vide order dated 20.05.2019.

11. The revisionist has not approached the court of competent jurisdiction after the order dated 20.05.2019 for the modification of the condition of the bail for reasons best known to him. He has approached this court only when Trial court has passed the order to deposit the said amount. Ld. Trial Court has directed the revisionist to deposit the amount in terms of the order passed by revisional court. The revision against the impugned order is not maintainable as revisionist has to comply with the order of the revisional court.

CR No. 510 of 2019 Monu Nayyar v. & or. 3/4

12. The liberty was given to the revisionist to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for modification of the condition of the bail. The revisionist has not come for the modification of the condition of bail till the order to deposit the amount is passed by the Ld. Trial Court.

13. Even otherwise, no ground is shown in the revision petition why the condition of bail should be modified. The revisionist has to show the grounds for the modification of the condition of bail.

14. No ground is put forth for modification of the condition of the bail. I do not find any ground or reason to modify the condition of bail.

15. There is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, same is dismissed.

16. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back.

17. Revision file be consigned to records.




announced in the open court on

23th September, 2019                    (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA)
                                 Add. Sessions Judge­04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
                                        South East, New Delhi




CR No. 510 of 2019                 Monu Nayyar v. & or.                       4/4