Sarkar Saheb vs The State
2001 Latest Caselaw 659 Del

ORDER

R.C. Chopra, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the code" only) by the petitioner against an order dated 22.2.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by which the application for grant of anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner was allowed subject to the condition that he would deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the Trial Court.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and also gone through the records of the case.

3. Relying upon the the judgments in Ashok Malhotra & Others Vs. State, 1994 JCC 301 and Moti Ram and Others Vs. States of Madhya Pradesh, , learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the condition in regard to the deposit of Rs. 50,000/- cannot be sustained and as such, should be set aside. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has contended that Section 438 of the Code under which the order for anticipatory bail was passed in favor of the petitioner, clearly postulates attaching of reasonable and appropriate conditions and as such, the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the condition in question is without any basis. Referring to sub-clause (2)(iv) of Section 438 of the Code, he submits that any condition that may be imposed under sub-clause (3)(c) of Section 437 of the code can be attached while granting bail under Section 438 of the Code.

4. Section 437(3) of the Code, which deals with bails in non-bailable offences, stipulates that when a person accused or suspected of commission of offence punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to seven years or more or an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of Indian Penal Code or abetment or conspiracy thereof is released on bail, the Court may impose any condition, which it considers necessary in the interests of justice. The offence under Section 406 IPC falls in Chapter xviii of the Indian Penal Code and as such, conditions as envisaged in sub-clause (3) of Section 437 of the Code can be attached thereto. In the judgment, referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner in Ashok Malhotra's case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court had also clearly held that attaching of a condition to an order of anticipatory bail is permissible. However, Hon'ble Judge was of the view that the discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily. It was held that an unreasonable condition frustrates the very purpose of the bail. In the Supreme Court judgment, referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, Their Lordships had emphasised the need for liberal approach in the matter of orders relating to bail.

5. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is found that the petitioner is being proceeded against under Section 498-A/406 IPC on the complaint of his wife, who had alleged that soon after her marriage, the petitioner and his family had started harassing and torturing her in regard to the dowry demands. She had also alleged that her jewellery as well as Istri Dhan was taken and retained by her husband and his brother's wife on the assurance that it would be returned as and when required. However, when the complainant demanded her jewellery and other articles back, they flatly refused and threw her out of the matrimonial home. In matrimonial disputes, a tendency appears to be emerging to return only those articles of dowry, which become worthless after use and retain the jewellery which has a higher value. Therefore, under such circumstances the condition attached by learned Additional Sessions Judge to merely deposit a sum of Rs.50,00/- with the Trial Court in F.D.R. to be dealt with at the final stage of the trial, was not an unreasonable, unjust or arbitrary condition. It appears that this condition was imposed to protect and safeguard the interests of the complainant and also make the petitioner feel that law does not countenance harassment of newly wed girls and deprivation of their jewellery and other valuables with impunity.

6. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court as the same appears to have been passed in exercise of proper judicial discretion in accordance with law and under the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is given fifteen days' time to comply with the condition of deposit of Rs.50,000/- attached to the impugned order.