The Special Judge has the authority to impose conditions, including the deposit amount, while granting bail, but should consider the propriety of the bill and undertake a prima facie view before directing the deposit.

A. K. SIKRI, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is the proprietor of M/s. Rajinder Ice Factory located at Khasra no. 339, Village Dindarpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi. According to the petitioner, he entered into a rent agreement dated 10. 4. 2006 with one Sanjay and as per this rent agreement, Sanjay agreed to run this ice factory as the sole and exclusive owner, user and beneficiary thereof in consideration of monthly rent payable to the petitioner. Sanjay was to run this ice factory at his own cost and risk. This factory was, however, sealed by the SDM on 20. 5. 2006. On 19. 6. 2006, i. e. almost one month after the sealing of this factory, enforcement team of BSES rajdhani Power Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') carried out the inspection of the said ice factory. This team found smell of Ammonia gas coming from the ice factory, though the factory was purportedly sealed. The factory was, therefore, de-sealed and inspection team found that the factory was being run clandestinely committing theft of electricity. This team had found ice slabs in the factory.

( 2 ) ON the basis of the inspection report of the complainant, FIR No. 583/2006 under Section 379 IPC and Section 138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Act') was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail and vide order dated 5. 9. 2006 the same was granted to the petitioner by the learned ASJ subject to furnishing of a personal and surety bond of Rs. 1 lakh each. The petitioner complied with these conditions contained in the order dated 5. 9. 2006.

( 3 ) IN the meantime, the complainant also filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 135 read with Section 151 of the Act with the Special Judge on 4. 9. 2006. In this complaint, the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 18. 10. 2006. On receipt of the summons, when the petitioner appeared before the special Judge on 17. 11. 2006, he preferred another application for anticipatory bail on the same day. The learned Special Judge, on this application, has passed the impugned order dated 17. 11. 2006 granting bail but subject to the condition of deposit of Rs. 25 lacs. Challenging this condition in the order, the present petition is filed.

( 4 ) IT is stated that though the petitioner had produced earlier order dated 5. 9. 2006 whereby he was granted anticipatory bail in the FIR, the Special Judge still advised him to file another bail application and in these circumstances he preferred bail application before the Special Judge. It is also alleged that the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 25 lacs with the complainant and only then he could be ordered to be released on bail and in these circumstances he had no alternative but to give an undertaking that he is willing to deposit the amount of Rs. 25 lacs. As per the order dated 17. 11. 2006, Rs. 5 lacs were to be deposited before 24. 11. 2006 and the balance amount within one month therefrom. When this petition came up for hearing on 23. 11. 2006, while issuing notice to the respondent, it was directed that in the meantime, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs within one week from the said date. This time was, however, extended by another week vide order dated 4. 12. 2006.

( 5 ) THE main ground, on which order dated 17. 11. 2006 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the condition of deposit of Rs. 25 lacs is challenged, is that no such condition could have been imposed inasmuch as the petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail in the FIR on certain terms, which the petitioner had complied with. It is argued that on the ground of commission of alleged theft of electricity by the petitioner, the complainant lodged the FIR and on the same allegations it was not competent for the complainant to file a complaint as well. It was argued that in any case, under these circumstances, both FIR and the complaint were to be consoli