VARKALA YADAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the grievance of the petitioner is that the order directing him to deposit Rs. 10,000/- in cash is contrary to Section 445 of Code of Criminal Procedure so much so that the option is for the petitioner/accused to deposit money in lieu of executing such bond. In other words, She Court, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, cannot insist upon deposit of any cash in lieu of bond.

(2.) Section 445 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

(3.) A bare reading of the above provision shows that there is force in the contention of learned Counsel for petitioner. Insofar as the requirement of surety bonds are concerned, the order is correct and the petitioner was directed to furnish two sureties by way of bonds for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each, but insofar as the requirement of personal bond is concerned, the condition is that he should deposit Rs. 10,000/- in cash. Evidently it is in lieu of personal bond. It is necessary at this juncture to visualise the situation when the accused who is ordered to deposit cash absconds and in that event, the bond shall have to be forfeited. It is noteworthy that the cash deposited by him cannot be forfeited in the absence of a personal bond as personal bond is a contract between himself and the Court and thereby the accused undertakes to attend the Court and in default to forefeit a stated sum to the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the absence of such a bond, it is not known as to how the Court would proceed to forfeit Rs. 10,000/- cash in this case. In the above circumstances, I am convinced that an illegality has been committed by the learned Judge. Moreover, such a condition runs counter to the spirit of Section 445, Cr.P.C.