RAMESHBHAI PARBATBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Hansa B. Punani, learned APP, for the respondent ­ State. RULE. Learned APP Mrs. Hansa Punani, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1- State.

(2.) BY way of the present Application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the original accused has challenged one of the conditions imposed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, vide order dated 30.8.2012, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 486 of 2012, by which the present applicant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,43,085.53 with the original complainant­Dabhiya Varetha Dudh Utpadak Sakakari Mandali.

(3.) MR . Nirav C. Thakkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has materially erred in imposing the condition of depositing the sum of Rs.4.43.085.53/- while releasing the applicant on bail. Mr. Thakkar, in support of his contention, has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court passed in Criminal Revision Application No.536 of 2012 as well as in the case of Mahersingh Or His Successor-in-Office Intelligence Officer Vs. Pradipkumar Bharatlal Poddar & Ors., reported in 2004(4) GLR 3332 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi reported in (2000) 2 SCC 66 as well as in the case of Amarjit Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 291. It is requested to allow the present Application and to delete the Condition No.1 imposed by the learned Sessions Court, by which the learned Sessions Judge has directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,43,085.53ps with the Bank-original complainant while releasing him on bail.