AJANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the judgement and order dated 14.8.2007 passed in G.S.T. No.180/06 u/s 2/3 The U.P. Gangster And Anti Social Activities(Prevention)Act 1986( hereinafter called as Gangster Act ) P.S. Tundla District Firozabad. By impugned order the learned Special Judge(Gangster Act) admitted bail to the appellant Ajant Singh providedly on furnishing personal bond and bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 50000.00 But further ordered that personal bond had already been forfeited and a condition was imposed that appellant shall be released on bail on depositing the amount of personal bond earlier filed and had already been forfeited. Appellant's counsel has grievance from this part of the order by which the condition has been imposed for release of the appellant from jail.

(2.) A perusal of the order shows that the appellant remained absent during proceeding of G.S.T. No. 180/06 and due to the absence of the appellant, the Special Judge(Gangster Act) forfeited the personal bond and when the appellant surrendered in the court and moved an application for bail then the appellant was granted bail providedly on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50000.00 with two sureties in the like amount. But a condition precedent has been imposed that the appellant shall be released only on depositing the amount of earlier furnished personal bond. Appellant's counsel argued that the appellant remained absent only on one date on valid ground and even the trial court considering the ground as bonafide and genuine, granted bail to the appellant on furnishing personal and bail bonds. There was no justification of the trial court of forfeiting the personal bond and imposing a condition precedent to release the appellant on bail on depositing the amount of already furnished personal bond. That such a condition is not in accordance with law and moreover the appellant is a poor person and he is not in a position to deposit the huge amount. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was granted bail by order of this court dated 20.7.2006 and in pursuance of the order of the court Special Judge(Gangster Act) ordered to furnish the personal bond and bail bond of the amount of Rs. 75000.00. The case under the Gangster Act was also illegally fabricated against the appellant. This court granted bail to the appellant u/s 392,364/411 Penal Code P.S. Tundla. It is further argued that in the same offence the police slapped the provision of Gangster Act.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. opposed the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that as the appellant committed default in appearing in the court hence the court was justified for forfeiting the personal bond and bail bonds. I have Considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. as I have stated above that the appellant has no grievance from this part of the order by which the bail was granted to the appellant. The grievance is only to this part of the order in which a condition precedent was imposed for depositing the amount of personal bond which was filed earlier and had already been forfeited. There is no such circumstance before me at this stage that under what circumstances the personal bond was forfeited by Special Judge/trial court. But it is evident from the record that personal bond and bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 75000.00 was furnished by the appellant and there is no reason to disbelieve the argument of appellant's counsel. Now if the appellant is to be released on bail then in order to secure and facilitate his release the appellant shall have to deposit a sum of Rs. 75000.00 of personal bond. Although appellant's counsel argued that this condition is redundant in law and there is no legality in imposing the condition. It is material to be considered that whether in case in which the personal bond has been forfeited then in subsequent bail whether such a condition may be imposed. It is the discretion of the court either to order to initiate the separate recovery proceedings or to impose the condition for the payment of amount of personal bond as a condition precedent to release the appellant. I am of the opinion that nothing is illegal in imposing this condition. But I agree with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of Rs. 75000.00 is too heavy amount and the court ought to have taken this fact into consideration that the appellant had already appeared in court and considering his bonafide of the appellant trial court ought to have reduced this amount so that he may be able to deposit the amount as provided in Sec. 446(3) Cr.P.C.. The order of granting bail must not amount to denial of bail by imposing the condition which is extremely difference rather not possible to fulfil the condition. The condition must be reasonable which can be fulfilled by a man of ordinary means. I agree with the argument of the appellant's counsel that amount is too excessive to be deposited.