SAHARA INDIA PARIWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2 by learned ASJ vide order dated 24 th April, 2010.

(2.) Respondent no.2 was allegedly involved in a case of embezzlement and a case under Section 408, 120B IPC was registered against him. Respondent no.2 applied for anticipatory bail initially before this Court and an interim protection was granted to him on his commitment to pay the amount of Rs.8,65,000/- within a certain period. However, respondent no.2 could not pay this amount on account of his weak financial condition and was arrested by the police. After his arrest by the police on 1 st April, 2010, he applied for regular bail. Vide order dated 24 th April, 2010, learned ASJ allowed his regular bail observing that respondent no.2's was not in a position to pay the amount as committed by him and due to his weak financial condition his son studying in engineering college was turned out from the college due to non-payment of fee and his marriageable daughter whose marriage was settled, could not get married. The learned ASJ found that it was not a case of deliberate non compliance of the commitment made before this Court but the respondent no.2 was actually hand to mouth. It was also observed that the alleged embezzlement had taken place on 6 th November 2008 but the FIR was registered on 29 th April 2009 i.e. after about six months. The learned ASJ, therefore, directed that the accused /respondent no.2 herein be released on bail on execution of personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety.

(3.) The order of learned ASJ is also assailed on the ground that the bail was not a right of the accused and there was no change of circumstances between making application before this Court for anticipatory bail and application before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge should have considered the seriousness of the nature of crime and should have denied bail.