Ajant Singh vs State of U.P.

Shiv Charan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant, and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the judgment and order dated 14.8.2007 passed in G.S.T. No. 180 of 2006 u/s 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as "Gangster Act'') P.S. Tundla, district Firozabad. By impugned order the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act) admitted bail to the Appellant-Ajant Singh providedly on furnishing personal bond and bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 50,000. But further ordered that personal bond had already been forfeited and a condition was imposed that Appellant shall be released on bail on depositing the amount of personal bond earlier filed and had already been forfeited. Appellant''s counsel has grievance from this part of the order by which the condition has been imposed for release of the Appellant from jail.

A perusal of the order shows that the Appellant remained absent during proceeding of G.S.T. No. 180 of 2006 and due to the absence of the Appellant, the Special Judge (Gangster Act) forfeited the personal bond and when the Appellant surrendered in the Court and moved an application for bail then the Appellant was granted bail providedly on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount. But a condition precedent has been imposed that the Appellant shall be released only on depositing the amount of earlier furnished personal bond. Appellant''s counsel argued that the Appellant remained absent only on one date on valid ground and even the trial court considering the ground as bona fide and genuine, granted bail to the Appellant on furnishing personal bond and bail bonds. There was no justification of the trial court of forfeiting the personal bond and imposing a condition precedent to release the Appellant on bail on depositing the amount of already furnished personal bond. That such a condition is not in accordance with law and moreover the Appellant is a poor person and he is not in a position to deposit the huge amount. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant was granted bail by order of this Court dated 20.7.2006 and in pursuance of the order of the Court Special Judge (Gangster Act) ordered to furnish the personal bond and bail bond of the amount of Rs. 75,000. The case under the Gangster Act was also illegally fabricated against the Appellant. This Court granted bail to the Appellant u/s 392 and 364/411, I.P.C., P. S. Tundla. It is further argued that in the same offence the police slapped the provision of Gangster Act.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the argument of learned Counsel for the Appellant that as the Appellant committed default in appearing in the Court hence the Court was justified for forfeiture the personal bond and bail bonds.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned A.G.A. as I have stated above that the Appellant has no grievance from this part of the order by which the bail was granted to the Appellant. The grievance is only to this part of the order in which a condition precedent was imposed for depositing the amount of personal bond which was filed earlier and had already been forfeited. There is no such circumstance before me at this stage that under what circumstances the personal bond was forfeited by Special Judgment/trial court. But it is evident from the record that personal bond and bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 75,000 was furnished by the Appellant and there is no reason to disbelieve the argument of Appellant''s counsel. Now if the Appellant is to be released on bail then in order to secure and facilitate his release the Appellant shall have to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000 of personal bond. Although Appellant''s counsel argued that this condition is redundant in law and there is no legality in imposing the condition. It is material to be considered that whether in case in which the personal bond has been forfeited then in subsequent bail whether such a condition may be imposed. It is the discretion of the Court either to order to initiate the separate recovery proceedings or to impose the condition for the payment of amount of personal bond as a condition precedent to release the Appellant. I am of the opinion that nothing is illegal in imposing this condition. But I agree with the argument of learned Counsel for the Appellant that the amount of Rs. 75,000 is too heavy amount and the Court ought to have taken this fact into consideration that the Appellant had already appeared in Court and considering his bona fide of the Appellant trial court ought to have reduced this amount so that he may be able to deposit the amount as provided in Section 446(3), Cr. P.C. The order of granting bail must not amount to denial of bail by imposing the condition which is extremely difficult rather not possible to fulfil the condition. The condition must be reasonable which can be fulfilled by a man of ordinary means. I agree with the argument of the Appellant''s counsel that amount is too excessive to be deposited.

In my opinion this amount may be reduced and must be reduced in the extenso that the Appellant may be able to deposit the amount of personal bond. In my opinion a sum of Rs. 15,000 will be most appropriate in the circumstances of the case. It will be just and proper in the case to reduce the amount of personal bond of Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 15,000. The appeal deserves to be dismissed at this stage but the order of the Special Judge is to be modified.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. However, the order of Special Judge (Gangster Act) dated 14.8.2007 is modified to this extent that the Appellant shall deposit the amount of Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 75,000 before the trial court and whenever the Appellant shall deposit the amount he shall be released forthwith in compliance of the order of the trial court.

Before parting with the judgment I will like to highlight the irregularity committed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act) in putting the number of the cases. The certified copy which has been produced before this Court shows that the case has been registered as G.S.T. No. 180 of 2006, it shows that learned Special Judge has been registering the cases of Gangster Act as G. Sessions Trial No. 1 think that learned Special Judge is not conscious of the fact that how the cases are to be numbered at the Sessions stage. There are two types of criminal cases which are to be tried by the Sessions Judge including Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge. The first category of cases are Sessions Trial under the provision of Indian Penal Code committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate under the provision of Section 209, Code of Criminal Procedure and in the second category there are cases which are to be tried under the provision of enactment of the State Government and Central Government by which the cases are being filed directly before designated Special Judge like the Gangster Act/S.C. and S.T. cases. Electricity cases etc. and present case is under the provision of Gangster Act, hence the case was filed before the Special Judge (Gangster Act) directly. This was not committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate u/s 209, Cr. P.C. Moreover, the cases which are committed by the Magistrate are to be received in the office of the Sessions Judge and all the cases which are committed to the Court of Sessions are numbered in the register maintained by the Sessions Judge whereas the cases of special category are not to be received in the office of the Sessions Judge, but are to be received by the office of Special Judge (Gangster/S.C. and S.T. Act etc.) and these cases of special category which are not received after committal must be numbered as criminal cases and not the Sessions Trial. The procedure of sessions trial and special cases is also different.

Moreover, while hearing criminal appeals filed u/s 449, Cr. P.C. I have noticed that most of the judicial officers are not following the correct procedure after forfeiture of the bail bonds and they are not putting separate number of misc. criminal case while initiating proceedings u/s 446, Cr. P.C. for recovery of the amount of bail bonds and some of the judicial officers continued to pass orders regarding recovery of the amount u/s 446, Cr. P.C. in the file of Sessions Trial. Whereas the law and rules provide that the proceedings u/s 446 must be registered separately and separate number must be put to such proceedings. It is highly improper to continue recovery proceedings u/s 446 in the file of Sessions Trial without putting separate misc. number on such file. The Presiding Officer of the Subordinate Court are also required to be reminded that the proceedings u/s 446 must be numbered separately and the orders must not be passed in the file of Sessions Trial. The same mistake has been committed in the present case also.

As the most of the Special Courts of U.P. are not following uniform policy in putting the number hence in my opinion it will be just and proper that a circular letter be issued by the Hon''ble Court for the entire State of U.P. Because I have also noticed that different practice is being followed in different judgeship for putting number of cases of special categories like Gangster Act, S.C. and S.T. Act. etc. There must be uniform practice throughout the entire State. In the circular letter it may also be impressed on the Presiding Officer of the Subordinate Court that they must follow the correct procedure while initiating the proceedings u/s 446, Cr. P.C. for recovery of the amount after forfeiture. They must put separate number on such proceedings. Hence, let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of Hon''ble Court for laying before Hon''ble Chief Justice for issuing circular letter in this context so that uniform policy may be followed in the entire State of U.P.