Dharam Pal Grover S/O Sh. Dhalu Ram ... vs National Capital Territory Of ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 1594 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Gupta, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 CrPC, for modification of the order dated 3rd May, 2007, passed by Shri A.S. Yadav, ASJ, New Delhi. It has been prayed that the order be modified by deleting the condition/direction to the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10 lacs by way of an FDR in the name of the trial court within a period of one week and retaining the remaining part of the said order.

2. The relevant portion of the impugned order, which is under challenge reads as under:

At this stage it is really very difficult to resolve the controversy as to whether the car was financed by the complainant or not but prima facie it do suggest. Without entering into the controversy let applicant pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by way of fixed deposit in the name of learned trial court. This amount will be paid to the complainant at the time of final adjudication. This amount be deposited within 7 days.

3. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that condition imposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs, by way of an FDR, is contrary to the law laid down in various judicial pronouncements of the Apex as well as this Court and this condition deserves to be modified, being impermissible in law and beyond the scope under Section 438 of CrpC.

4. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned Counsel for the complainant that the petitioners took various dates before this Court for complying with this condition and now they have taken a somersault and are opposing the condition imposed by the trial court. It is further contended that no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioners since the sum of Rs. 10 lacs is not being given to the complainant as the same has to be deposited in the Court and it shall be paid to the complainant only at the time of final adjudication and hence the present petition is not maintainable.

5. It is correct that before this Court the petitioners sought time for depositing the said sum of Rs. 10 lacs by way of Fixed Deposit in the name of the trial court. But in view of various decisions cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners, the court cannot pass order for conditional deposit of the amount for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail and on this point, decision of the Apex Court, reported as Avinash Arora and Ors. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Anr. may be referred to in which it was held that-

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Court committed error in passing the conditional order of depositing Rs. 10 crores for grant of anticipatory bail as in our view, this cannot be held to be an exercise of judicial discretion. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned direction and remit the matter to the High Court for re-disposal of the petition filed under Section 438 of the CrPC, in accordance with law.

6. Keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for re-disposal of the petition filed under Section 438 of the CrPC in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of.