Ravinder Singh Thakur vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2008 Latest Caselaw 1428 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 Crl. M.C. 2698/2008

%                   DATE OF DECISION : 22nd AUGUST, 2008

      Ravinder Singh Thakur                     ..... Petitioner

                        Through:      Mr. Manu Sharma , Advocate

                  versus

      State of NCT of Delhi                     ....Respondent

                        Through:    Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State.
                                    Mr. A. Aggarwal, Advocate for the
                                    Complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may                              No
   be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                             No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?             No

                        JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Section 440 (2) read with Section 482

Cr.P.C. for reduction of surety amount of Rs. 50 lacs as stipulated in

the order dated 5th August, 2008 whereby the Petitioner has been

directed to furnish two sureties of a sum of Rs. 50 lacs.

2. Section 440 reads as follows:

"440. Amount of bond and reduction thereof.-(1) The amount of every bond executed under this chapter

shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.

(2) The High Court or Court of Session may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced."

3. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Bank as

well as the State. I am of the view that the surety asked to be

furnished by the Trial Court is rather excessive.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct

that the Petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing a bail

bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) with two sureties of the

like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. However, the

Petitioner shall surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer,

against receipt. The learned counsel for the Petitioner says that, in

fact, Petitioner's passport is already in the possession of the

Investigating Officer. If that is so, then the IO shall retain the

passport during the pendency of proceedings before the trial court.

5. With these observations, the present petition is allowed. Order

dasti.

August 22, 2008                                  MANMOHAN, J.
rb