Back
2010 Supreme(All) 337
2010 (68) ACC 821.1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Vs.
State Of U.P.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 302 of 2010
Decided on : 27.1.2010
Arvind Tripathi,Mangala Prasad Rai :- for the Petitioner
Govt. Advocate:for the Respondent
Bail conditions should not involve deciding civil disputes or considering the liability of the accused vis-a-vis the complainant or victim.
Headnote:
Bail Conditions - Deposit of Money - Interpretation of Conditions
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist sought bail with a condition to deposit Rs.6,00,000 in three equal installments within three months. The court considered a similar case where the detenue was directed to deposit money for maintenance of the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the condition of depositing Rs.6,00,000 but confirmed the bail with a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and two sureties each in the like amount.
Issues: Interpretation of bail conditions, reliance on precedent, and imposition of financial obligations as bail conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while considering bail conditions, it should refrain from deciding civil disputes or considering the liability of the accused vis-a-vis the complainant or victim.
Final Decision: The court finally disposed of the revision by quashing the excessive deposit condition and confirming the bail with revised financial terms.
Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant revision is directed against order dated 28.10.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.11, District Varanasi in bail application no.2538 of 2009 Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
I have perused the order impugned in the instant revision. Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail to revisionist imposed a condition that he will deposit Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lacs) in three equal installments within a period of three months. In the event of default on the part of revisionist, order granting bail will amount to rejection of bail.
2. The counsel appearing for revisionist has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others (2006) 6 SCC page 196. The order challenged before the Apex Court was that while granting bail, detenue was directed to deposit Rs.2,000/- per month for maintenance of victim. The Apex Court remanded matter to the High Court to consider bail application afresh on merits but to refrain from deciding any civil dispute between parties or even to consider liability of the accused vis-a-vis complainant or victim as the case may be.
3. The order dated 28.10.2009 imposing condition on revisionist for payment of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lacs) in three equal installments within three months, is quashed. However, order granting bail fixing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned is confirmed.
For the reasons discussed above, the instant revision is finally disposed of.
