RAMADHAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent-­State.

(3.) The appellant at present is in pre-­trial custody on allegation of lifting cash through the ATM cards which were meant to have been issued to the account holders of the bank. Allegations have been made for commission of offences, inter-­alia, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 408, 201 and 120B of the IPC and Ss. 66 & 66-C of Information Technology Act. Certain other accused persons have also been implicated in the same crime. An order was passed by the High Court on 28/4/2022 allowing the appellant's prayer for bail. As recorded in that order, the appellant had volunteered to deposit a sum of Rs.65,92,460.00­. The said order carried the condition that the appellant had to deposit Rs.10,00,000.00­ before the Trial Court and Rs.55,92,460.00­ was to be deposited under protest within a period of three months from the date of his release. There were other conditions which were imposed but those are not relevant for considering the appellant's plea in this proceeding. The offences, commission of which are alleged against him, relate to embezzlement of a sum of Rs.1,44,00,000.00­. The appellant was released on bail on deposit of Rs.10,00,000.00­. The appellant had failed to deposit the remaining amount and surrendered on 24/7/2023. He applied for bail again mainly citing release of a co-­accused by this Court on 1/5/2023 in SLP (Crl.) No. 3158 of 2023. The said co-­accused was earlier released on bail by the High Court on his willingness to deposit certain sum of money but later on failed to make such deposit. The appellant's fresh application for bail was refused by the High Court. The appellant sought parity with the co-­accused in the application which was rejected. In the order rejecting his application for bail, the High Court referred to Sec. 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said provision reads:-­