9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complainant. The complainant having come under such inducement made payments of different amounts, at different times between 1996-97 to the accused. It was further stated in the complaint that instead of investing the amount in the property the petitioner misappropriated the amount. Although a post dated cheque for a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- was given on 9.8.1997 by the accused to the complainant. The same on presentation was dishonoured. 3. On registration of FIR investigation commenced. Petitioner's application for being released in the event of his arrest i.e. application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 7.2.2001. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Cr.M.(M) 624/2001 on 15.2.2001. Initially interim order was passed on 8.3.2001 for releasing the petitioner on bail but the said order was cancelled on 13.8.2001. During investigation the petitioner was arrested from his office at Hyderabad on 19.9.2001 and was brought to Delhi. He was remanded to police custody and then to judicial custody. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for being admitted on bail. Application was taken up on 29.9.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of FDRs in the name of District Sessions Judge, Delhi within 10 months by way of Installment of rupees two lacs in a month. In view of this submissions of accused/applicant, he is allowed to deposit this amount in the Lower court. However, this amount is being deposited without prejudice to the rights of the accused and the Complainant. In view of this the accused/applicant is granted interim bail up to 5.11.2001 on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 40,000/- with two sureties of the like amount and in case any of the condition is not fulfillled by the accused/applicant and the amount is not deposited on any date, his bail shall be cancelled without any further orders. The accused/applicant is also directed to deposit the Installments of rupees two lacs per month from Nov.2001 onwards till the whole balance amount of ₹ 2.00 lacs is deposited by him in the lower court by way of FDRs as ordered above. Put up on 5.11.2001 for further consideration. sd/- ASJ/New Delhi 10.10.2001 4. On 5.11.2001 interim bail was extended on the concession of the investigating officer that in case petitioner would keep on depositing FDR in court he will have no objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining amount by 18.12.2001 making it clear that in case amount is not deposited by the due date interim bail would stand cancelled. Case was adjourned to 24.12.2001 when it was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that FDR for ₹ 2 Two lakh had been deposited as per the last order. Interim bail accordingly was continued. On 10.1.2001 it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not been in a position to arrange for the next Installment of Rs. Two lakh. Time was sought which was not opposed. Case was adjourned to 19.1.2002. On 19.1.2002 counsel for the petitioner was not present. Adjournment was allowed. Case was directed to be taken up on 28.1.2002. In the meanwhile the petitioner approached this Court by filing Cr.M.(M) 267/2002 an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking interference to the order dated 10.10.2001. 6. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 10.10.2001 on the ground that direction to him to deposit the amount, which was subject matter of F.I.R. as a condition precedent for confirmation of bail is a condition imposed upon him and he had been forced to pay a price for his lib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be imposed. It was also held that such other or further conditions may also be imposed which may be considered fit in the circumstance but conditions must not be unduly harsh or should not, in any manner, make an order of bail illusory. 9. In Sarkar Saheb's case (supra) another learned Single Judge considered similar question raised in revision challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by which an application for grant of anticipatory bail had been allowed subject to the condition of the accused depositing a sum of ₹ 50,000/- in court. Learned Single Judge held that the court is entitled to impose any condition, which it considers necessary in the interest of justice, as provided under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Since offence under Section 406 IPC falls in Chapter XVII of Indian Penal Code condition can definitely be imposed but discretion must be exercised judicially while imposing conditions attaching to the bail. It must not be exercised arbitrarily since unreasonable condition frustrates the very purpose of the bail. Considering the facts of the case learned Single Judge held that in a matrimonial matter when immediately after the marriage of the compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court making it clear that in case the amount, as undertaken is not deposited, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any indulgence on the adjourned date. Later on learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that though the petitioner had undertaken to deposit the amount the petitioner was not now prepared to deposit the amount which he had undertaken to deposit. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner had deliberately tried to mislead the court and the court was left with no option but to reject the application for anticipatory bail. 11. It would be thus seen that the three decisions aforementioned by three learned Single Judges of this Court proceeded on the facts peculiar to each case. In Vansh Bahadur's case (supra) before the court could consider the question as to whether bail should or should not be granted voluntarily the petitioner came forward and undertook to deposit the amount, which was the subject matter of the FIR. He had voluntarily undertaken to deposit the amount due to which he had been granted some interim indulgence. He had declined to honour his undertaking. His application for bail was rejected, solely on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under Sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under Sub-section (3) of Section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section: Provided that where such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as surety shall be liable, by order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and be satisfied that the accused will not abscond or otherwise misuse liberty and this can be ascertained from several factors like conduct of the accused in the past, his assets in the country and so on. While granting such anticipatory bail though the court may impose such conditions, as it thinks fit, but the object of putting conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering investigation. The discretion of the court while putting conditions should be an exercise of judicial discretion. In case for offence under Section 409 and 420 IPC the court will certainly not proceed to recover the alleged amount as a condition of grant of bail. After laying down this law that any offence, may be under Section 409 and 420 IPC or such other offence, the court certainly will not go into and recover the amount as a condition of grant of bail, the Supreme Court declined to modify the order of the High Court observing that the High Court had directed payment of the amount on the basis of the undertaking given by the accused. Therefore, the accused would be required to pay the balance amount. 18. In the light of the decision of Supreme Court in M. Srinivasulu Reddy the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in M. Sreenivasulu Reddy's case that when an accused has undertaken to deposit the amount and acting on that undertaking an interim order of bail was granted, the order did not require any interference thereafter since the accused was bound to pay and since the balance amount which he had undertaken to pay and since the balance amount was not paid, rightly the court had declined to grant indulgence to the accused. 20. There is a valid reason for taking this view of the matter and the reason being the doctrine of estoppel, which was duly approved by the Supreme Court in Sajan K. Varghese and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1989 SCC (Cri) 339. In nutshell it was held that when a court in persuaded to accept the terms and conditions for grant of indulgence, it will not be permissible for the party later on to resile from those terms and conditions. It is permissible, when an undertaking is given on behalf of the accused to deposit the amount, that indulgence can be granted to him, if considered reasonable and proper. Reference may be made in this regard to the decisions of Supreme Court in Chakrawarti Prasad v. State of Bihar 1(2001) CCR 249 and Amarjit Singh v. St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
