CRR-2030-2022

--1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR-2030-2022

Date of decision: 14-10-2022

Alisha Kharmutee

......Petitioner(s)

v.

CBI

......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: -

Mr. H.S. Maan, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Shubhra Singh, Standing Counsel

for the respondent-CBI.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

RCCHG2016A0022

01.10.2016

CBI, Chandigarh

120-B, 420, IPC and

66-D I.T. Act

Criminal Case no.

before trial Court

1960 of 2017

CRA No. before

the

Appellate

Court

141 of 2022

Challenging the order dated 30.8.2022 passed by the Special Judge, CBI,

Chandigarh, vide which the Lower Appellate Court had directed the petitioner-convict

to furnish surety bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and also to make payment of fine,

the petitioner-convict has come up before this Court by filing the present revision

petition.

2.

Vide order dated 30.3.2022, Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Chandigarh

had convicted the petitioner under Sections 120-B, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC

and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act and sentenced her to undergo

imprisonment for 1½ year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- on all three counts. The

petitioner challenged the said judgment by filing an appeal before the Special Judge,

ASHWANI KUMAR

2022.10.19 12:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment

CRR-2030-2022

--2--

CBI Court, Chandigarh and the said Court vide order dated 30.8.2022, suspended the

sentence of the petitioner-convict subject to furnishing surety bonds and deposit of

fine, as aforesaid.

3.

Prayer of the petitioner-convict is that she is a poor lady and belongs to

North-eastern States and unable to arrange a surety.

4.

In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-

2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, [Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court

observed,

[53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties,

the <Court= and the <Arresting Officer= should give a choice to the

accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or

direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or

creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a

further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the

accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the

Court or the arresting officer.

5.

It is strange that despite the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court,

the lower Appellate Court did not give an option for the petitioner-convict to furnish

surety through fixed deposit, which she is willing.

6.

Be that as it may, the impuged order dated 30.8.2022 passed by the

Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh is modified in the following terms:-

<provided the applicant is not required in any other case, the applicant

shall be released on bail in the FIR and the case captioned above, till the

next date, in the following terms:-

(a) Applicant to furnish personal bond of Rs.Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-);

AND

(b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the

satisfaction of the concerned court, and in case of its non-availability, any

nearest Illaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety,

the concerned court must satisfy that such surety can produce the

accused before the court.

OR

(b) Applicant to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs.

Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal

of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account, made in

favor of the 8Chief Judicial Magistrate9 of the concerned district. Said

fixed deposit may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the

State i