BASHIR YASIN SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed by the applicant inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch at Ankleshwar in Criminal Revision Application No.19/2019 as well as the order dated 02.02.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleswar, Bharuch, by which, condition has been imposed upon the applicant to deposit the amount.

(2.) It is contended by learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is an accused in connection with an FIR being C.R. No.I?107/2013 registered with Ankleshwar GIDC Police Station for the offences under Sections 406 , 420 , 506(2) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the allegations have been made with regard to siphoning off an amount of Rs.32.00 lakhs and apprehending arrest in connection with the said FIR, the applicant had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court being Criminal Misc. Application No.436/2013 and the learned Sessions Court, by an order dated 08.07.2013, was pleased to allow the said application and granted anticipatory bail to the applicant herein on a condition to deposit an amount of Rs.32.00 lakhs before the concerned Sessions Court. It is submitted that the applicant had challenged the said condition of deposit of the amount before this Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No.464/2013, however, this Court rejected the said application by an order dated 08.01.2014. It is further contended that the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.2902/2014 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also rejected the said Appeal by an order dated 04.04.2014. It is submitted that since the applicant was not in a position to deposit the said amount, the applicant could not be released on anticipatory bail and, hence at present, he is in jail. It is submitted that thereafter, the applicant came to be arrested on 16.01.2019 and sent to the judicial custody, therefore, the applicant preferred an application under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for bail and the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleswar, Bharuch, by an order dated 02.02.2019, was pleased to allow the said application and granted bail to the applicant herein on a condition to deposit an amount of Rs.32.00 lakhs, which is the same condition imposed upon the applicant at the time of granting anticipatory bail. The applicant submits that against the said condition imposed upon the applicant while granting regular bail, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision Application No.19/2019 before the concerned Sessions Court, Ankleshwar, however, the concerned Sessions Court rejected the said application by an order dated 26.03.2019. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant had approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No.4242/2019, however, the said application was withdrawn by an order dated 18.04.2019. It is, therefore, contended that the present application is filed for quashing and setting aside both the aforesaid orders imposing the condition to deposit the amount as stated in the orders as it is too harsh and in fact, it is not possible for the applicant to deposit the said amount. It is contended that the applicant was suffering from kidney disease and blood?sugar and for the said treatment, huge expenses has occurred and at present also, treatment is going on. It is, therefore, urged that the said condition may be suitably modified.

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.D. Dhanapal Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, delivered in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.5195?5196/2019 and submitted that in the said case, the concerned applicant was directed to pay total amount of Rs.70,000/? to the family members/legal heirs of each deceased and the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside those condition imposed upon the concerned application. Learned advocate has also referred to the judgments, compilation of which has been supplied and submitted that in those cases also, the Hon'ble Court has interfered with such condition and passed appropriate orders. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sandeep Jain Vs. NCT of Delhi, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 66. He further submits that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/? before the concerned trial court within eights weeks from the date of his release and instead of surety of Rs.1,00,000/?, the applicant will deposit provisional cash bail an amount of of Rs.15,000/?. He submitted that though the applicant is not involved in the alleged commission of offence, he has to suffer though he has been granted regular bail but because of the condition imposed upon him, he has not come out from the jail till date. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may be allowed.