The court affirmed that voluntary compliance to bail conditions is binding and may not be contested after seeking extensions, directing the release of deposited amounts upon satisfactory security provisions.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

CRL.M.A.11184/2021 (For directions)

1. This is an application filed by the complainant under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions for the release of amount of Rs.62,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner/accused with the trial court.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the complainant that the present bail application has been disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2021, vide which this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner after the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- in pursuance of order dated 06.05.2021 and 11.06.2021 with the Trial Court in FIR No. 301/2020 registered with P.S. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- before the Trial Court in FIR No. 301/2020, the said sum of Rs.62,00,000/- may be released to the complainant i.e. Sh. Vishal Bhutani, subject to the final outcome of the said FIR. It is also submitted that the complainant is ready to offer reasonable security to secure the said amount to the Trial Court, if the orders to the release of Rs.62,00,000/- are passed. Lastly it is prayed that the amount may be released in the name of complainant on furnishing of reasonable security.

3. Reply to this application has been filed by petitioner.

4. In response to the contents of the application, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- so deposited by the petitioner with the trial court under the order of this Court, shall not be released to the complainant, as the same has not yet been adjudicated and the amount was deposited without prejudice to the rights and contentions. It is further submitted that complainant has no right to the said amount and the same exclusively belongs to the petitioner. He further submitted that since complainant is not entitled to the amount deposited by the petitioner under the order of this Court hence, there is no question of the same being released to him, even if he is prepared to furnish any security for the same. It is also submitted that the petitioner with a view to comply with the condition imposed by this Court, has deposited a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- by arranging the same with a great difficulty and even by taking loans. It is submitted that if ultimately the petitioner is found innocent then she will have to fight another battle to get her money recovered from the complainant.

5. To support his contentions Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied on following Judgments:

(a) Manoj Kumar Sood & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, LL 2021 SC 171.

(b) Shyam Singh Vs. State through CBI, (2006) 9 SCC 169.

(c) Dilip Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., LL 2021 SC 31.

6. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the complainant.

7. I have perused the judgments "supra" relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner but at the outset the judgments relied upon by him are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

8. In the instant case, the bail application of the petitioner came to be listed on 06.04.2021. Thereafter notice was issued to the respondent (State) and the complainant and the matter was listed for 06.05.2021 for arguments on the bail application of the petitioner but without addressing any argument, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner was ready to deposit 50% of Rs.62,00,000/- which is the amount in dispute within three weeks from the said date and further submitted after seeking instructions from the petitioner th