[1.0] Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") has been preferred by the applicant herein original accused No.3 challenging the impugned order dated 30.07.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.382 of 2009 by which the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the said application preferred by the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant and has cancelled the bail earlier granted to the applicant pursuant to the order dated 14.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1066 of 2008. [2.0] An FIR came to be filed against the applicant herein – original accused No.3 and others with Umra Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The applicant and others came to be arrested and therefore, they preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1066 of 2008 and by order dated 14.07.2008 the applicant along with other accused came to be released on bail on furnishing the solvent surety of Rs.10,000/ and one another surety of a like amount and on further conditions that till the chargesheet they shall mark their presence at Umra Police Station on 30th day of every calender month. That the applicant and another came to be released on bail. It appears that thereafter respondent No.2 herein submitted the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.382 of 2009 before the learned Sessions Court, Surat for cancellation of bail on the ground that there is a breach of condition of the bail order dated 14.07.2008 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1066 of 2008 inasmuch as the accused have not paid the installments of loan amount as agreed and accepting the same the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order.
[2.1] That the present Revision Application was taken up for hearing on 07.09.2012 and this Court passed the following order.
Shri Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant under the instruction from his client has stated at the Bar that without prejudice to his rights and contentions applicant is ready and willing to deposit Rs.1 lakh with the Registry of this Court and on that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and he may be continued on bail. Shri Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant has no objection.
Hence, stand over to 24th September 2012.
[2.2] Today, when the present Revision Application is taken up for further hearing, Shri Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has stated that the applicant has brought an amount of Rs.80,000/ in cash which shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court today itself and the balance amount of Rs.20,000/ shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court on or before 08.10.2012. He has stated at the Bar that aforesaid deposit shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the applicant in the trial and on deposit of the aforesaid amount it may not be construed that the applicant – original accused has admitted the guilt. It is submitted that in view of the above, the impugned order be quashed and set aside and bail granted to him pursuant to the earlier order dated 14.07.2008 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1066 of 2008 be continued and/or restored.
[3.0] Shri R.J. Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has stated at the Bar that in view of the above, he has no objection if the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the earlier order dated 14.07.2008 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1066 of 2008 is restored and the applicant is continued on bail. However, has requested to permit the respondent No.2 to withdraw the aforesaid amount so that the same can be credited in the loan account without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties and subject to ultimate outcome of the trial.
[4.0] Shri Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has stated at the Bar under the instructions from the client that he has no objection if the aforesaid amount is permitted to be withdrawn by respondent No.2, to be credited in the loan account in question subject to ultimate outcome of the trial.
[4.1] Learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties have requested to dispose of the present Revision Application in view of the above.
[5.0] In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties recorded herein above, the present Criminal Revision Application is disposed of by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.382 of 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat and the earlier order dated 14.07.2008 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1066 of 2008 is restored on condition that the applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh (as agreed herein above) and out of which Rs.80,000/ to be deposited during the course of day and Rs.20,000/ to be deposited with the Registry of this Court on or before 08.10.2012 (as agreed). However, it is made clear and and observed that the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the trial and by aforesaid deposit it may not be construed that the applicant has admitted the guilt and he shall be tried in accordance with law and on merits and on the basis of the evidence led. As agreed, on deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1 lakh, respondent No.2 shall be permitted to withdraw the same which shall be paid to respondent No.2 by account payee cheque by the Registry and respondent No.2 to credit the said amount in the loan amount in question subject to the ultimate outcome of the trial. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Sd/
(M.R. Shah, J.)
menon