PAPPU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER condition to deposit the amount of earlier executed persona! bond can be imposed at the time of granting fresh bail", is the main point that fails for consideration in this bail application moved under section 439 (1) (b) of the Code of criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr. P. C), in which it is prayed that condition imposed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act) Bareilly in case No. 64 of 2004, arising out of case crime No. 397 of 2003, under sections 2/3 u. P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 (in short 'the Gangster act"), for depositing Rs. 50,000/- in court as penalty be set aside.

(2.) I have heard arguments of Sri Sanjiv kumar Gupta, Advocate appearing for the applicant and AGA for the State.

(3.) FROM the impugned order (Annexure-2) it is revealed that the applicant Pappu and ganga Singh were accused in the FIR lodged on 22. 11. 2003 at P. S. Sahaswan, District budaun at case crime No. 397 of 2003, under section 2/3 Gangster Act. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of Special Judge (Gangster Act) Barieliy, where case No. 64 of 2004 was registered against the accused persons. It appears that the applicant Pappu became absent on 23. 02. 2005 and hence non-bailable warrant was issued against him and when he did not appear, process under section 82/83 Cr. P. C. was issued and notices were also issued to his sureties. From the impugned order, it is further revealed that vide order dated 09. 05. 2007 personal bond of the accused and surety bonds of the sureties were forfeited and warrant for recovery to realize the amount of personal and surety bonds were issued. An order was passed again on 28. 02. 2009 to realize the amount of personal bond from the accused Pappu. Thereafter the accused-applicant Pappu was arrested on 06. 04. 2009 and when application for bail was moved on his behalf, the court below passed the impugned order dated 30. 04. 2009, whereby the applicant was released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 80,000/-and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount. Simultaneously, a condition was imposed in the impugned order to deposit rs. 50,000/- by the applicant in court as penalty. The applicant has approached this court by means of this application to set-aside the condition of depositing Rs. 50,000/-