Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1455/2013 of Sharafat Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER on 28 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No.1455 of 2013 Sharafat … Applicant vs. State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. A . Khan, A.G.A. for the State. U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No.1455 of 2013
Sharafat … Applicant
vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another
… Respondents
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. A. Khan, A.G.A. for the State.
U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The applicant, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has challenged a condition which was imposed upon him vide order dated 08.11.2013 by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal no.141/2013. The legal controversy involved in the present petition is very short. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, being decided summarily at the threshold with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. Applicant Sharafat filed a Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar. He was granted bail during the pendency of criminal appeal. He was directed to execute a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- alongwith two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned.
3. Appellant (applicant herein) also prayed for stay of realization of fine and compensation. The same was also allowed. The appellant was directed to deposit 1/4[th] of the amount of fine, as well as of compensation, in the court below.
4. There is no illegality in the aforesaid orders.
5. But, learned Sessions Judge further directed that the personal bond and sureties (i.e. bail bonds) of the appellant shall be got verified only after 1/4[th] of the amount of fine and compensation is deposited by him (i.e., appellant). The same was not tenable. Grant of bail and stay of realization of fine/compensation are two different things. There is no connection between the two. They operate in different territories. It could not have been said that the bail bonds will be got verified only when a part of fine/compensation is deposited by the appellant. The existence of one is not dependant upon the other. The latter could not be a condition precedent for the former.
6. Learned Sessions Judge, therefore, ought not to have imposed the condition that the bail bonds (i.e. personal bond and sureties) will be accepted only after 1/4[th] of the amount of fine and compensation is deposited by the appellant and thereafter, the bail bonds would be verified.
7. The condition whereby learned Magistrate was directed to accept the personal bond and sureties of the appellant only after 1/4[th] of the amount of fine and compensation is deposited by him is accordingly set aside.
8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. thus finally stands disposed of.
(U. C. Dhyani, J.)
Dated 28[th] December, 2013 Rawat