IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5603/2017 BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Mugrody Constructions, Suvarna Sahakara Soudha Building, Kavoor, Mangalore -575 015.
Rep: D. Sudhakar Shetty.
2. D. Sudhakar Shetty, S/o. Dasu Shetty, Aged about 47 years, R/at Sheeladas, Mugrodi, Padavinangady, Mangalore Taluk, D.K. District -575 001. ...Petitioners (By Sri. P. Nataraju, Advocate) AND:
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Legal) 7th Floor, Trade Center, Bunts Hostel, Mangalore -575003. …Respondent (By Sri. N.R. Bhaskar, Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to relax the condition No.2 imposed in C.C.
No.23/2016 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore dated 12.02.2016.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for order this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This is the petition filed under section 439 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners seeking modification of bail conditions imposed in Crime No. 23/2016 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of hearing the petition, made the submission that the amount of Rs.62,14,981/- has already been deposited before the concerned court as per earlier bail order. Subsequently, on a private complaint came to be filed, while granting bail, the Court insisted petitioners to pay Rs.62,14,981/. Hence, it is the submission of the petitioners that, this was the same amount for which the court while granting bail ordered and imposed conditions by insisting the petitioners herein, to deposit the amount before the court. Hence the allegation is, the amount which the petitioners have collected has not been remitted within the prescribed period of time i.e., six months. This matter is under enquiry and so far as the deposit is concerned, counsel submitted that the amount has already been deposited. Hence, he submitted to relax condition No.2.
3. Learned counsel representing the respondent made the submission that it is not the same amount what was ordered by the Court. This amount is altogether different. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that depositing the amount as per the earlier bail order is not sufficient. The petitioners have to deposit another amount of Rs.62,41,981/- as ordered in the order dated 12.02.2016 while granting the bail. Hence, the counsel submitted that there is also an allegation of the respondent against the petitioners that, though they have collected the amount, they have not remitted the same within the prescribed time period of six months. Hence, he submitted that there is no necessity to order for the modification of the condition No.2 of the said bail order.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, averments made in the petition and the objection statement filed by the respondent, so also condition No.2 in the bail order.
5. Looking to the materials placed on record, the petitioners have already deposited the amount of Rs.62,14,981/- before the court as per earlier bail order. Therefore, the question of again depositing the amount of Rs.62,41,981/- as per the order of the second bail dated 12.02.2016 does not arise at all. Hence, the bail order condition No.2 is hereby modified and it is deleted.
6. In case, for the enquiry, in the private complaint, if the court is of the opinion that, this is not the same amount and it is altogether different amount, then the respondent is at liberty to move the application before the concerned court seeking a direction at that moment of time. For the present, condition No.2 in the bail order dated 120.02.2016 is deleted. With this the bail application is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK