RUPAK RATHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned direction contained in the order 22.02.2011 whereby Sessions Judge, Panchkula while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 102 dated 18.04.2011 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 and 34 IPC has directed him to place on record the FDR in the sum of Rs 5 lakhs in the name of trial/duty court in addition to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs 1 lakh and one surety in the like amount. Directions further are that the FDR of Rs 5 lakhs shall be subject to the final outcome of the case. Counsel appearing for the petitioner would plead that this condition imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail is unreasonable and onerous. Plea further is that this pre-condition would be patently illegal and, thus, required to be set aside.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and the operation of this part of the condition, requiring the petitioner to deposit FDR of Rs 5 lakhs, was stayed. The State has filed response but has blissfully remained silent about the decision of imposing such a condition. It is not stated whether such condition could be imposed and if imposed, will it be unjust or onerous.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Sandeep Jain versus National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2000 1 RCR(Cri) 517, Amarjit Singh verus State of NCT of Delhi, 2009 16 SCC 649 and Rajesh Chander Bhardwaj versus State,2006 1 FJCC 374 etc. to contend that such condition either cannot be imposed or if imposed would be onerous and, hence, unsustainable.