CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Islam alias Kallu vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 27 March 2003 · Citation: (2004) 2 ACR 1316

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.N. Sinha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 446, 446(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 364, 367
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2003
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 373 words

K.N. Sinha, J.—The present revision has been filed against the order dated 11.2.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 8, Aligarh. From the record it transpired that revisionist was an accused in State v. Jagvir and Ors. Sessions Trial No. 927 of 1994, u/s 364/367, I.P.C. P. S. Asrauli district Aligarh. The accused was initially granted bail but he did not attend the Court from 11.11.2002 to 7.12.2002 on account of illness. The Court had issued non-bailable warrant against the revisionist. The revisionist was detained in jail since 9.12.2002 and he applied for bail. By the impugned order the bail application of the applicant was allowed but a condition was imposed that accused revisionist shall deposit Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) as the amount of personal bond.

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party and perused the impugned order.

3.

It was first contended before this Court that an amount of personal bond cannot be directed to be deposited unless the bond is forfeited and a notice u/s 446 is issued. The Court should first record its satisfaction forfeiting the bonds then may call upon the person to show cause why it should not be paid or to deposit the amount of personal bond as penalty thereon. According to Section 446 Sub-clause (2) of the Cr. P.C.:

If the sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Code.

No such procedure has been adopted by the trial court.

4.

Thus, in view of the above provision, directing the deposit Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) being amount of personal bond filed by the Petitioner earlier, is totally illegal. Such a condition in grant of bail is not only unreasonable but is also illegal. The revision is allowed and the condition imposed regarding deposit of the amount of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) of previous personal bond imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. If the amount has been deposited it shall be refunded to the revisionist.

5.

The revisionist shall be released as ordered by the learned trial court without the above deposit.