1. The present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original accused no. 2 (as per the chargesheet) to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned 4th (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dated 10/10/2012 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2392/2012 in so far as imposing the condition of depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- by the applicant herein, while releasing him on bail in connection with FIR, being C.R. No. 157/2012 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 471, 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The applicant herein-original accused no. 2 (as per the chargesheet) came to arrested by the Investigating Officer on 20/06/2012 in connection with FIR, being C.R. No. 157/2012 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 471, 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code filed by one Shri Pravinbhai Baler. Thereafter, the applicant submitted Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2393/2012 before the learned Sessions Court, Surat under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release him on bail and vide impugned order dated 10/10/2012, the learned 4th (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat has allowed the said application and released the applicant on bail in connection with FIR, being C.R. No. 157/2012 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 471, 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. However, while releasing the applicant on bail, the learned Judge has imposed the condition of depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- by the applicant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order passed by the learned 4th (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dated 10/10/2012 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2392/2012 in so far as imposing the condition of depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- by the applicant while releasing him bail, the applicant-original accused no. 2 (as per the chargesheet) has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application.
3. Shri Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has materially erred in imposing the condition of depositing the sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- while releasing the applicant on bail. Shri Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has heavily relied upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 92/2012, the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Mahersingh Vs. P.B. Poddar reported in 2004(4) GLR 3332, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi reported in (2000) 2 SCC 66 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarjit Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 291 in support of his above submission. Making the above submission and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Revision Application and quash and set aside condition no. 2 imposed by the learned trial Court by which the learned Judge has directed to deposit Rs. 7,50,000/- with the Bank-original complainant while releasing him on bail.
4. The present Criminal Revision Application is opposed by Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing on behalf of respondent-State. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and when the amount involved is a public money and when the loan amount of Rs. 39 lakhs is alleged to have been deposited in their account, when the learned Judge has directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 7,50,000/- to protect the interest of the Bank, it is requested not to interfere with the impugned order and not to quash and set aside the condition imposed by the learned Judge of depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- by the applicant while releasing him on bail. Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present application.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicant submitted an application before the learned Judge to release him on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR, being C.R. No. 157/2012 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 471, 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and while releasing the applicant on bail, the learned Judge has imposed condition no.
2 directing the applicant to deposit Rs. 7,50,000/- with the Bank and only thereafter the applicant can be released on bail, which is challenged by the applicant herein. As such the controversy raised in the present Criminal Revision Application is squarely covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Mahersingh (Supra) and the learned Single Judge has specifically observed that such a condition for cash security while releasing the accused on bail cannot be imposed.
5.1. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 355/2012 and similar condition imposed by the learned trial Court while releasing the accused on bail has been set aside by this Court by observing that such a condition of depositing of the cash amount while releasing the accused on bail cannot be imposed. In the aforesaid decision, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Jain (Supra) as well as in the case of Amarjit Singh (Supra). Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court referred to hereinabove, condition no. 2 imposed by the learned 4th (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dated 10/10/2012 in so far as directing the applicant to deposit Rs. 7,50,000/- with the Bank while releasing him on bail in connection with FIR, being C.R. No. 157/2012 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 471, 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the pre-condition imposed by the learned 4th (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dated 10/102/012 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2392/2012 while releasing the applicant on bail of depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- by the applicant- original accused no. 1 (as per the chargesheet) is hereby quashed and set aside. Rest of the order and the conditions imposed by the learned Judge imposed while releasing the applicant on bail while passing the order in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2393/2012 stands and the applicant to comply with the same. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji