Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 445 crpc in @ Kevin Esso @ Kev vs . Cbi on 23 January, 2021Matching Fragments
This is an application under Section 445 of Cr.PC filed on behalf of accused / applicant.
Arguments heard. Record has been perused.
The accused was granted bail vide order dated 23.09.2020.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find any reason to modify the bail order.
I have also perused the case law as filed by Ld. Defence counsel. I have highest regard for the authorities as placed on record but they do apply to facts and circumstances of the case.
In these circumstances, application stands dismissed."
3. It is the said order, the petitioner has challenged by way of present revision petition on the following main grounds :
That the impugned order dated 19.11.2020 passed by Ld. Trial Court is bad in law and has been passed without application of mind. It is submitted that the revisionist had already admitted on bail on 21.07.2020 in another matter i.e. RC No. 221/2019/E0008 u/S. 43 r/w. Sec. 66, 66C, 84C and 66D of IT Act 2000. It is stated that when the Ld. Trial Court had already granted the benefit to the revisionist for execution of personal bond in terms of the order dated 21.07.2020 so there is no justification for declining the prayer of the revisionist mentioned in the application u/S. 445 CrPC for the necessary modification of the order dated 23.09.2020 passed by the Ld. Trial Court up to the extent to waive off the condition for producing the two sureties and to allow the petitioner / applicant / accused to deposit the cash amount in lieu of the surety bond, without any legal justification.
6. In the judgment cited as K. Bhuvaneswari Vs. The Inspector of Police, XXI Team, CCB, EDFIII, Commissioner of Office, Vepery, Chennai (Crime No. 126 of 2017) in Crl.O.P. No. 21308 of 2017, decided on 23.10.2017, it has been held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court as under :
17.While granting bail, the Court can direct the accused to execute bail bond. As per Section 440 Cr.P.C. the bond amount should not be excessive. When a person so directed to execute the bond either with surety or without surety is not able to furnish the sureties, then under Section 445 Cr.P.C. he has the option to offer cash security. But even then, it must be a reasonable amount. It should not be an arbitrary, excessive amount. It should not be in the nature of deprivation of grant of bail by fixing an heavy amount as surety amount. If heavy amount is directed to be deposited as cash security, the bailee/accused will not be in a position to comply it. If heavy amount is demanded from the Surety, then the bailor will not be forthcoming. And 'haves' will go out while 'have nots' will remain in jail.
18.Reading Sections 440, 441 and 445 Cr.P.C.
together, it is clear that straightaway a Court cannot direct the accused to deposit cash security. First of all, the Court has to direct execution of bail bond by the sureties in case if the release is not on his own bond. Only in lieu of that deposit of cash security could be directed (see Section 445 Cr.P.C.).
19.As already stated even if the cash security is ordered under Section 445 Cr.P.C. the Court must pay regard to the circumstances of the case and the amount should not be excessive (see Section 440 Cr.P.C. Also see State of Mysore vs. H.Venkatarama Kotaiyah (1968 Crl.L.J. 696) Moti Ram and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1978) 4 SCC 47] Babu Singh and Others vs. The State of U.P. (AIR 1978 SC