1. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar for the petitioner and learned APP Ms.Moxa Thakkar for the respondent State. It has been disclosed by the learned advocate for the petitioner that though order dated 5.10.2012 in Criminal Misc.Application No.582 of 2012 passed by the District & Sessions Court, Anand is challenged in this application only for the purpose and reason that the trial Court should not impose a condition to deposit Rs.6 Lacs while granting the bail, since this Court has not stayed such order, petitioner has already deposited Rs.6 Lacs before the trial Court and he is released on bail. However, petitioner is pressing to consider this application and to set-aside the impugned order so far as condition of depositing Rs.6 Lacs is concerned, on the ground that practically the company where the petitioner was serving has already paid the amount in dispute to the original complainant. According to the petitioner, such fact has been observed by this Court while allowing anticipatory bail to one Dilipsinh Naranbhai Rana in Criminal Misc.Application No.12703 of 2012 .
2. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has not disclosed such factual details to the trial Court which has imposed such condition regarding depositing Rs.6 Lacs. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to apply before the trial Court for modification of such order by disclosing relevant facts and pray for refund. The trial Court shall decide the issue on its own merits without being influenced by the order in this application. The application is disposed of with above direction. Notice discharged.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) binoy Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.