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
9 paragraphs · 217 wordsRajeev Kumar Dubey, J
Heard.
Applicant has preferred this petition for modification of the order dated 5/2/2019 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 47218/2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier the applicant had filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.47218/2018 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 5/2/2019 with a direction to the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank.
Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is a poor person and he is not in a position to deposit the alleged amount, so the condition imposed by this Court for depositing the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in fixed deposit be relaxed.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.
From perusal of the record, it appears that on the proposal of the applicant that he is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- under protest, this Court allowed the bail application with the condition to deposit the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank.
So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to modify the order dated 5/2/2019 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.47218/2018.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.