CRL. REV. P/8/2004 of Dil Hasan Ansari Vs State of Sikkim on 7 December 2004

I,

lN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKiM

OF]DEF` SHEETCRIIIIHAL REVISIONI)IL msAw ANSARI

No. a of 2004

Pethioner / Appellant

ialDateofo'ofo'lerOrder

6.12. ZOO3.7.12.20

Order with Signature

Present a Mr. Karma I. |hutla. Iearrredcounsel for the petitioner.

Mr. .. .. Pradhan, learned PublicProseaLtor for the State.

Heard Mr. I(arma I. ]hutla. leanedCounsel for the petitioner and Mr. d. ..pradhan. learned Public ProBea].tor fclr t,lieState ln part. To come up for furtherhearing tocorrow. \ _-_

( . p. subba 'Oudge--

4 Present : Mr. KarmatT. Bhutia; learned counsel forthe petitioner.

Mr. J. 8. Pradhan, 1eamed PubliProsecutor for the State.

Heard Mr. Karma T. Bhutia, learned Counsefor the accused/petitioner and Mr. J. 8. Pradhanlearned Public Prosecutor for the State -respondent.2. The order dated 24.11.2004 passed by th1eamed Sessions Juqge, South and West at Namcin Crimipal Misc. Case No.69 of 2004 granting bail tthe petitioner herein, on certain conditions includinfurnishing of bank guarantee .in the sumRs.8,00,00,000/- (Rupees eight crores), and twsolvent sureties. ih the sum of Rs.1,00,00,0(Rupees one crore) each, is the subject matter uncle •yJ

Office Note as toaction (if any)taken on Order .J.. DateSerialNo. ofofOrderOrder challenge in this revision petition. The submission ofMr. K. T. Bhutia, learned Counsel for the petitioner,is that, the provisions under Cr.P.C. do not stipulateimposihg of any condition requiring an accused tofurnish bank guarantee. His further submission isthat, the amount of bond fixed by the Court is soexcessive, that the same tantamounts to denial ofbail.

3. In support of his submission, on the questionof the bank guarantee, the learned Counsel referredto and relied on the order dated 2.12.2002 passed bythis Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.4 of 2002.A perusal of this order shows that the petitioner inthe said revision petition had raised the same plea asin the present case, i.e., that there was no provisionof law empowering the court to impose condition forfurnishing bank guarantee. The order further showsthat the learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing on behalf of the State had conceded to thelegal position, and upon this, the revision wasallowed setting aside the impugned order directingthe learned Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter.In the present case also, the learned PublicProsecutor appearing for the State concedes to the Office Note as toaction (if any)taken on Order Order with Signatureaction (if any`}.taken on Orderlegal position as submitted by the learned Counsefor the petitioner except the additional submissiothat a case has to be decided on the facts ancircumstances of each case. However, he fdirlconceded that as the legal point raised in the presenpetition is identical to the point raised in CriminRevision Petition No.4 of 2002, a similar approacmay be adopted in the interest of j.ustice.

4. Admittedly, the legal issue in the presenpetition and in Criminal Revision Petition No.4 o2002 is one and same as indicated above. Keepinthis in view, I do not find any justification fordeparture in approach in the present case.5. Accordingly, the impugned order date24.11.2004.is set aside, thus remitting the matter tothe learned Sessions Judge, South and West fordealing with the bail petition afresh, keeping in viewthe observations made above. The parties shallappear before the learned Sessions Judge, South andWest on 9.12.2004.6. A copy of this order may be sentto the learnedSessions Judge (S&W) at Namchi, for information andneedful action.

\;-. ,`.

edc- chi aJ<£4tryJ-touJ- ndh-ul e-¥,L=bYth+H,=#

( A. I. Subba )