AKHTAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 24-7-1981 by learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 1980 State v. Baley and others directing the revisionist to deposit a sum of Rs. 9000/- in cash and secure his release pending the trial.

(2.) IT appears that revisionist happened to be absent on the earlier date filed in the trial and so his presence was procured through coercive process. He applied on 24-7-1981 vide paper no. 18-Kha cancellation of warrant and for release on furnishing new surety bonds. The application was granted provided the revisionist deposited a sum of Rs. 3000/- in cash and two sureties who were required to deposit Rs. 3000/- in cash. If such sureties were not available the revisionist could be enlarged on bail on the condition that he will have to deposit Rs. 9000/- in cash and then only he could be enlarged on bail. He was taken into custody and sent to jail as he failed to deposit such amount.

(3.) THE contention put forward on behalf of revisionist is that Section 445 of Code of Criminal Procedure which permit a court to accept such deposit for a sum of money or Government promissory note to such amount as the court or officer may fix in lieu of executing such bonds simply provides a concession to the accused and does not empower the court to order such deposit in cash as a condition precedent to enlarge him on bail.