RAKESH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is preferred under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order 31.03.2012 passed by the ld. ASJ (Fast Track Court) whereby the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the ld. ASJ granting bail to the petitioner on the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of 50% of the alleged cheated amount in the Court was affirmed.

(2.) The case was lodged under Section 420, 506 IPC on 10.08.2011 by the complainant Mr. Jitender who is the Manager of M/s Nu Line Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Tripulati Aluminum ltd. alleging that his companies had supplied aluminum wire rods to the petitioner's company M/s Tanishka Industry. According to the complaint, the total value of the wire rods supplied to the petitioner amounts to Rs. 89,40,147/-. It has been alleged that the petitioner refused to make the payment for the material supplied to him and extended threats to the complainant when he demanded the payment. The petitioner was taken into judicial custody on 23.08.2011. While disposing the bail application filed by the petitioner, the ld. ASJ imposed the impugned condition for grant of bail which was affirmed by ld. ASJ (Fast Track Court) .Hence the present petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the modification of the order of granting bail on the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of 50% of the alleged cheated amount in the Court terming it as onerous and as tantamounting to denial of bail, in spite of the bail order, as it is not possible for the petitioner to fulfill the condition. Reliance has been placed on Sandeep Jain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2000 CrLJ 807to emphasise the fact that while granting bail, the court should be cautious not to impose unreasonable conditions. It has been further submitted that the trial Court has assumed the role of a recovery forum by passing such an order which is against the canons of criminal jurisprudence. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the offence for which an accused is charged is heinous in nature, the accused should normally be accorded the benefit of bail. Reliance has been placed on State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand, 1977 4 SCC 308.