DHARMU URF DURYODHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The accused-petitioner has come to this Court by way of this Criminal Misc.petition under Sec. 482 Code Criminal Procedure to quash/set aside the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui (District Dausa) in the order dated 03.10.2012 in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.325/2012 whereby while granting benefit of bail to the petitioner under Sec. 439 Code Criminal Procedure in respect of FIR No.182/2012 registered at Police Station Manpur for offences under Sections 454, 414 and 380 Indian Penal Code. The condition imposed is to the effect that the bail bonds, filed by the petitioner before the trial court shall be attested only when on verification by the trial Court it is found that no other criminal case is presently pending against the petitioner in Police Station Manpur or any other Police Station. In compliance of the aforesaid bail order, the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Sikrai to attest the bail bonds filed by him but the learned Magistrate refused to attest the bail bonds and to release the petitioner on bail vide order dated 12.10.2012 on the ground that presently Case No.362/2000 is pending against the petitioner and in the light of condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui in the aforesaid order the application cannot be allowed. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court.

(3.) On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the relevant legal provisions. I find that the condition imposed by the Court while allowing bail application filed by the petitioner is unreasonable and the learned Magistrate has committed illegality and perversity in refusing to attest the bail bonds and to release the petitioner on bail only on the ground that the aforesaid criminal case is still pending against the petitioner. I am of the view that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui was entitled to disallow the bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner on finding that he is a habitual offender and one or more other criminal cases are pending against him but once he allowed the application and ordered to release the petitioner on bail in the present case it was not reasonable on his part to direct the trial Court to attest the bail bonds only when it is found that presently no other criminal case is pending against the petitioner. That apart, looking to the fact that only one other criminal case relating to the year 2000 is pending against the petitioner the imposition of such condition is further unreasonable.