RAJENDRAKUMAR PRABHATSINH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. V.M. Pancholi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service for the State.

(2.) The applicant came to be arrested by Police in connection with CR No.I-85 of 2003 registered with Anand Rural Police Station, for offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. He therefore applied for bail before the Sessions Court, Camping at Anand, by preferring Criminal Misc. Application No. 363 of 2003. The said application came to be allowed by virtue of an order dated 29th August, 2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda, Camping at Anand. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail on depositing Rs. 25,000/- in cash and executing bond and furnishing solvent surety for like amount. While allowing Criminal Misc. Application No. 363 of 2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed at Sr.No.5, a condition to the effect that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- ordered is to be deposited in cash besides his personal bond and solvent surety, shall, in event of any breach of any of the conditions, stand automatically forfeited and the Court shall recover Rs. 25,000/- from his surety as well. A further condition was also put at Sr.No.6 that bail granted to the applicant would stand automatically cancelled if a written intimation is received by the Investigating Officer about breach of any of the conditions imposed by the Court, and the Investigating Officer shall forthwith arrest the applicant. The applicant is aggrieved by imposition of these conditions and hence, this application for modification of the order.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Pardiwala appearing for the applicant submitted that imposition of condition for deposit of cash of Rs. 25,000/- is too harsh a condition and it amounts to, in substance, denial of bail. He is also aggrieved by the fact that by virtue of condition No.5, the amount is ordered to be forfeited on breach of any of the conditions. The condition leaves no scope for any enquiry and adjudication on question whether in fact breach is committed or not. He therefore urged that direction for deposit of Rs. 25,000/- may be deleted and condition No.5 may be modified to the extent that applicant be directed to abide by law etc..