AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nikhil S. Kariel, J
Heard learned Advocate Ms. Urja B. Dave for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma for the respondent-State.
Rule. Learned APP Mr. Sharma waives service of notice for the respondent-State.
By way of this application, the applicant seeks for modification of Condition No.(1) imposed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in order dated 24.12.2024 in Criminal Misc. Application No.834 of 2024, more particularly whereby the Sessions Court had directed the applicant to be released on regular bail, subject to depositing 50% of the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.25,52,696/- before the Trial Court.
It would appear in this regard that while the said condition had been imposed by the learned Sessions Court upon a statement being made by learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant before the learned Sessions Court as regards the applicant being ready and willing to deposit 50% of the amount in question, yet, it would appear that since the applicant was not in a position to deposit the said amount, as of now, the applicant has not been released.
It also appears that an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 777 of 2025 for modification/deletion of the said condition had been preferred before the learned Sessions Court and whereas vide an order dated 28.10.2025, the learned Sessions Court had rejected the said application, resulting in, the applicant has approached this Court.
Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Ms. Dave for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Sharma and having perused the documents, following aspects are taken into consideration by this Court.
(i) While it is an admitted position that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court 24.12.2024, was upon a statement made on behalf of the present applicant and while the present applicant does not deny such instructions being given to learned Advocate, yet, it would appear that inability to deposit such amount has resulted in the applicant remaining in custody for more than 11 months inspite of an order granting regular bail to the present applicant.
(ii) The fact that the applicant is remained custody for so long a period, is indicative of the fact that the applicant would not be in a position to deposit the amount in question.
(iii) This Court has also taken into consideration that the applicant is a lady accused who is in custody for almost one year i.e. since 03.12.2024.
(iv) While this Court does not find any error committed by the learned Sessions Court while passing order dated 28.10.2025, yet, independently, having regard to the fact that the applicant is in custody since almost one year and considering that the applicant is lady accused, this Court is inclined to consider the present application.
Having regard to the above observations, the following order is passed.
(i) The Condition No. (1) imposed by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 24.12.2024 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 834 of 2024 directing the applicant to deposit 50% amount of alleged misappropriation i.e. Rs.25,52,696/- before the Ld. Trial Court, is hereby deleted.
(ii) The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail on the remaining conditions as imposed by the learned Sessions Court in the order dated 24.12.2024.
The present application stands allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.