P. SATHASIVAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
Sumit Mehta – Appellant
Versus
State of N. C. T. of Delhi – Respondent
Judgment :-
P. Sathasivam, CJI.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 1479 of 2012 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court while granting anticipatory bail to the appellant herein in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 104 dated 22.08.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) directed him to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (one crore) in fixed deposit in the name of the complainant in any nationalized bank and to keep the FDR with the Investigating Officer.
3) According to learned senior counsel for the appellant, the condition for depositing the amount in fixed deposit in the impugned order is untenable in law and is outside the purview of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”). He further pointed out that learned single Judge, while imposing the condition for depositing the amount in fixed deposit, has failed to appreciate that the liberty for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code cannot be used for recovery
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 (Para 9)
Amarjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2009) 13 SCC 769 (Para 10)
Sheikh Ayub vs. State of M.P. (2004) 13 SCC 457 (Para 11)
I.Glaskasden Grace and Ors. vs. Inspector of Police and Anr. (2009) 12 SCC 769 (Para 11)
Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi Rep. by Secretary
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.