Ram Bharose and Others vs State of U.P.

B.K. Rathi, J.—Heard Sri R. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned A.G.A.

The Petitioners are accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2000, State v. Manjha alias Ram Chandra and others, pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kaushambi. The Petitioners were released on bail earlier in this case. However, they did not appear and non-bailable warrants have been issued against the Petitioners.

The contention of the Petitioners is that after the case was committed, no notice was served on them ; that without seeing the report of the service on the Petitioners, the learned Sessions Judge has issued non-bailable warrants ; that thereafter, on the date fixed, the Advocates were on strike. The Petitioners surrendered on 22.1.2002 and applied for bail. The learned Sessions Judge has granted the bail on 25.1.2002 on filing of personal bond and bail bonds. He has also imposed another condition of deposit of Rs. 15,000 being amount of previous personal bond. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been preferred.

In my opinion, the order directing to deposit Rs. 15,000 being amount of the personal bond filed the Petitioners earlier is totally illegal. Notice to show cause u/s 446, Criminal Procedure Code should have been issued and thereafter, the order for the recovery could have been passed. Such a condition in grant of bail is not only unreasonable but is also illegal.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the condition imposed regarding the deposit of Rs. 15,000 the amount of previous bonds imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is quashed. The Petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and bail bonds as directed by the learned Sessions Judge without deposit of amount.

The petition is disposed of.