JITENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the appellant Jitendra and the learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned order.

(2.) THE appellant Jitendra has preferred this appeal against the order dated 23.1.2009, passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge appointed under the U. P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act, Bareilly, in Criminal Case No. 120 of 2006, whereby the learned Special Judge has forfeited the personal bond of the appellant and directed for recovery of Rs. 50,000 as penalty and also released him on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two fresh sureties each in the like amount and also on depositing the penalty of Rs. 50,000.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not given any show-cause notice after forfeiture of his personal bond and as such imposition of penalty was not proper. It was further submitted that the learned lower court has committed gross error of law in releasing the appellant on bail on his depositing cash amount of Rs. 50,000 as penalty. In my opinion, these two submissions have substance.