Crl. M. C./5/2008 of Anupam Barua Vs State Of Sikkim on 16 December 2008

Date®r;a,No. OfofOrders '";th signatureOrder02.03.Order16.12.200816.12.2008Present: Mr. Ajay Rathi, Advocate for thePetitioner.Mr. Karma Thinlay, Additional PublicProsecutor for the State.

Heard arguments in part.List it again in the afternapn session.(Justice .P.Subba)Acting Chief JusticePresent:Mr.AjayRathi,Advocatefor the 2 p.in.Petitioner'Mr. Karma Thinlay, Additional PublicProsecutor for the State.

Heard the learned counsel appearing forboth the parties.

This is an application filed by thepetitioner under Section 440(2) read withSection 439(1)(b) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 for deduction of the bailamount. The petitioner herein was arrestedon 12th June, 2008 in connection with SadarP.S. Case No.79(6)08 under Section 414/34of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated thatthe bail application moved by the petitionerafter his arrest was allowed since nocharge-sheet was filed within the period of2 months. As per the bail order, theaccused was to be released on hisfurnishing bail amount of Rs.10 lakhs with areliable surety. One Mrs. P. K. Chettri, aPrimary Teacher of Human ResourceDevelopment Department, Government ofikkim, Gangtok produced as surety for the Office Note as toaction ([J` 4„y)I taken on order - aerialDateNo. ofofOrders "'{!,h signatureOrderOrderpetitioner was not acceptable to the learnedtrial Court. No other surety could befurnished and as such, the petitioner is stillin custody.It is submitted by the learned counsel forthe petitioner that the amount of Rs.10lakhs fixed as bail amount is too excessiveand the same amounts to denial of bailitself. It is on account of the bail amountbeing excessive that the accused wasunable to furnish the required surety andavail of the bail order. Drawing theattention of this Court to the Order dated7th October, 2005 passed by this Court inCriminal Revision Petition No.14 of 2005,the learned counsel submitted that thecircumst:ances of the present case beingidentical a similar order reducing the bailamount was called for. The learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor opposed theapplication mainly on the ground that thecase against the accused is serious one andit would be more appropriate for him toapproach the learned trial Court for reviewor for reconsiderati`on of the amount of bailif he was aggrieved by the bail amount fixedby the Court.

The provision as contained in Section440(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 makes it amply clear that every bondexecuted under Chapter XXXIII relating tobail and bail bonds shall be fixed with dueregard to the circumstances of the case andthe same shall not be excessive. Thus,keeping in view such clear provision of law Office Note as `toaction (,, a„J,)taken on order

Conclusion

Accordingly, the bail amount as fixed bythe impugned order passed by the learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, East & North atGangtok on 14th August, 2008 standsreduced to Rs.5 lakhs.The learned counsel for the petitionerundertakes on his own not to leave theState on being released on bail and toreport to the I.0. of the case every day.Since such a condition is acceptable to thepetitioner on his own it is hereby directedthat the petitioner shall report to I.0. asand when required in connection with theongoing investigation.Needless to say the accused shall nottamper with the prosecution evidence andshall cooperate with the investigation.The accused shall be released on hisfurnishing personal bond and surety bond ofthe amount indicated above to thesatisfaction to the learned Chief Judicialtt)a"Magistrate, East & North at Gangtok.rl LZ|Accordingly, this application stands;#f:£#D``dedisposed of.Send a copy of this order to the18':::C:,::::e. Court for lnf#on and( Justice A. P. Subba )Acting .€.n.ief Justice