Allahabad High Court
Vimal Raj vs Union Of India on 3 August, 2023
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156053 Court No. - 89 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18270 of 2023 Applicant :- Vimal Raj Opposite Party :- Union of India Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
In Re: Crl. Misc. Modification Application No.03 of 2023
1. Heard Sri Avanish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant to modify the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18270 of 2023 to the extent of deletion of condition of requirement of two local sureties of like amount for the purposes of release of the applicant on bail and the applicant may be permitted to deposit a sum of money of like amount as provided under Section 445 of Cr.P.C.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused, Jumma Khan on whose parity, bail had been granted to the applicant also belongs to the state of Tamilnadu and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 modified the condition of bail order of co-accused Jumma Khan through modification application in view of the provision of Section 445 Cr.P.C. In view of that the applicant is resident of other state and he is not able to furnish the two local sureties.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon under Section 445 of Cr.P.C., which is as follows:
"445. Deposit instead of recognizance- When any person is required by any Court or officer to execute a bond with or without sureties, such Court or officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the Court or officer may fix in lieu of executing such bond."
5. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of Delhi High Court, Uttarakhand High Court as well as the order of this Court in which the Court has ordered for release of the accused following the provisions of Section 445 of Cr.P.C, the particulars of the order of different High Courts are as follows:
"1. Application under Section 482 No.5398 of 2015, Maha Ahmad Yusuf Vs. State of U.P. & Another, dated 24.2.2015 (Allahabad High Court).
2. Bail Application No.1960 of 2020, Nastor Farirai Ziso Vs. NCB, dated 11.4.2022 (Delhi High Court).
3. Criminal Misc. Application No.902 of 2020, David Morrison Vs. State of Uttarakhand, dated 13.1.2021 (Uttarakhand High Court)."
6. Para No.6 & 7 of the judgment rendered in Maha Ahmad Yusuf (supra) are relevant for perusal which are as follows:
"6.- Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is a foreign national is not having any relative or friend who can stand surety for him and may not be in a position to take help of any person in India. The legal preposition of law as has been settled by the Apex Court in the cases of Moti Ram Vs. State of M.P. (Supra) and State Vs. Jagjit Singh (Supra) wherein the relevant consideration for granting bail has been clearly analysed. The cash deposit is equally efficacious as other system in view of Section 445 Cr.P.C.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by In-charge C.J.M., Maharajganj is modified to the extent that the applicant is permitted to deposit the cash amount of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of surety with the C.J.M. concerned subject to deposit of said surety amount and on furnishing a personal bond of the same amount be released on bail by C.J.M. concerned subject to the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned trial court.
2. The applicant shall cooperate with the trial.
3. The applicant's pass-port which has been stated to be kept with the United Nations High Commissioner for the Refugees, New Delhi shall not be released to the applicant by the said authorities without the permission of the trial court."
7. Considering the provisions of Section 445 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the ratio of law laid down by different High Courts, the applicant-accused, who is a other State resident and he is not able to furnish sureties, the condition mentioned in the bail order dated 17.05.2023 for furnishing two local sureties is modified and in place of two local sureties, the applicant shall deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash before the trial Court with two more conditions, which are as follows:
(i) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission to the concerned trial Court.
8. The modification application is accordingly, allowed.
9. The order dated 17.05.2023 is modified to the aforesaid extent, the other conditions mentioned in the order dated 17.05.2023 shall remain the same except for furnishing two local sureties.
10. This order shall form part of the order dated 17.05.2023.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Meenu Singh