PAPPU RAM SEWAK Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether condition to deposit the amount of earlier executed personal bond can be imposed at the time of granting fresh bail, is the main point that falls for consideration in this bail application moved under sec­tion 439(i)(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-2009, arising out of case crime No. 397 of 2003, under sections 2/3, U.P. Gangster & 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.) THE main submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant was that at the time of granting fresh bail to the applicant, the Court below could not im­pose the condition to deposit the amount of earlier executed personal bond without following the procedure provided under section 446 Cr.P.C. and hence the condition imposed by the Court below in the im­pugned order for depositing Rs. 50,000/-by the applicant as penalty being wholly illegal and onerous deserves to be set-aside. The contention of the learned Coun­sel was that the amount of earlier execution personal bond cannot be recovered as penalty without issuing notice to the ac­cused and since in present case, no notice was issued by the Court below to the appli­cant to show cause as required under sec­tion 446 Cr.P.C., hence the order passed by the Court below to realize the amount of personal bond from the applicant was wholly illegal, as at the time of granting bail to the applicant, condition to deposit Rs. 50,000/- as penalty could not be im­posed.