VIJAYALAXMI JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. The applicant was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, on 3rd October, 2005. The applicant is working as an employee of the International Airport Authority. It is alleged that the applicant alongwith other accused hatched conspiracy to give false assurance to unemployed youth that the applicant and other accused would provide them jobs at the Airport, Mumbai. Accordingly, the huge amount was collected by accused no.1 through Sartape and complainant and other people were called at a particular place and a farce was created in holding in interviews in which applicant took an active part and posed to be an official of the Airport Authority and promised to give jobs to the complaint and others. The total amount of Rs.40-50 lakhs were collected in this manner. Since the jobs were not made available, the complaints were filed.

(2.) APPLICANT no.1 has been released on bail by this Court (Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) by order dated 19th December, 2005 primarily on account of age of the accused no.1. The Sessions Court granted bail to the present applicant on condition of execution of P.R. Bond of Rs.1 lakh and surety in the like amount. She was also directed to deposit Rs.10 lakhs in the trial Court. It is observed by the Sessions Court if the said amount is not deposited by the applicant, she would not be entitled to be released on bail. The applicant is seeking modification of the relaxation of the aforesaid condition. The applicant, therefore, seeking is reduction of the amount of Rs.1 lakh as also the condition of depositing of Rs.10 lakhs.

(3.) LEARNED APP, on the other hand, has relied upon the Judgment of Allahabad High Court, 1990 CRI.L.J. 912 in the case of Ganesh Babo Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. He has submitted that in the said case, the Allahabad High Court has observed that Supreme Court in an identical case had directed the accused to give bank guarantee in the tune of Rs.1.5 lakhs. He invited my attention to the observation made by the Allahabad High Court, in para 11 of the said judgment wherein the High Court has observed that in cases there is an embezzlement of public money, it was duty of the Court to ensure that the said money is secured though the accused.