Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1518 (RAJ)

Sedu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-09-11

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Issue notice. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State of Rajasthan. 3. The instant Misc. Petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed on behalf of the petitioner - Sedu Singh who is in custody in relation to the Criminal Misc. Case No. 892/2014 pertaining to F.I.R. No. 125/2014, registered at the Police Station Chhatargarh, Distt. Bikaner. 4. The Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner by Order dated 28.7.2014 accepted the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Whilst accepting the bail application, the Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner imposed a condition that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon depositing a sum of Rs. 25,360 in the Court concerned. 5. The petitioner has approached this Court for deleting the said condition from the Order dated 28.7.2014 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner granting bail to him. 6. Heard Shri Bhup Singh, brother of the petitioner present in person, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the Order dated 28.7.2014. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner has proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner has committed the offence and he should be directed to recompense the complainant while deciding the bail application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code The Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner was having discretion either to accept or reject the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. Imposing the onerous condition of depositing the allegedly looted amount and the amount of the petrol purchased virtually amounts to recording a finding against the accused that he has committed the offence. The condition imposed is extremely onerous and normally should not be imposed whilst granting bail to an accused under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code That apart, the accuse was not named in the F.I.R., therefore, It is for the Trial Court to decide as to whether the accused looted the amount in question from the complainant or not. 8. The petitioner is reported to be a poor person and on account of non deposition of the amount, he continues to be in custody even though his bail application was accepted way back on 28.7.2014. 9. Be that as it may the condition imposed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner to deposit the amount of Rs. 8. The petitioner is reported to be a poor person and on account of non deposition of the amount, he continues to be in custody even though his bail application was accepted way back on 28.7.2014. 9. Be that as it may the condition imposed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner to deposit the amount of Rs. 25,360 in the Court concerned whilst granting bail to the petitioner by Order dated 28.7.2014 is too onerous and virtually amounts to denying him bail. Thus the condition imposed cannot be sustained and deserves to be expunged and deleted from the order impugned. 10. Resultantly, the Misc. Petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 25,360 in Court concerned before he is released on bail is expunged. 11. The petitioner who continues to be in custody despite his application for bail having been accepted by the Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner by Order dated 28.7.2014 is directed to be released on bail forthwith ignoring the onerous condition of depositing the amount of Rs. 25,360.Petition Allowed. *******