Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard learned Counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant revision is directed against order dated 28.10.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, district Varanasi in Bail Application No. 2538 of 2009, Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P.

I have perused the order impugned in the instant revision. Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail to revisionist imposed a condition that he will deposit Rs. 6,00,000 (Rupees six lacs) in three equal instalments within a period of three months. In the event of default on the part of revisionist, order granting bail will amount to rejection of bail.

The counsel appearing for revisionist has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 196. The order challenged before the Apex Court was that while granting bail, detenu was directed to deposit Rs. 2,000 per month for maintenance of victim. The Apex Court remanded matter to the High Court to consider bail application afresh on merits but to refrain from deciding any civil dispute between parties or even to consider liability of the accused vis-a-vis complainant or victim as the case may be.

The order dated 28.10.2009 imposing condition on revisionist for payment of Rs. 6,00,000 (Rupees six lacs) in three equal instalments within three months, is quashed. However, order granting bail fixing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned is confirmed.

For the reasons discussed above, the instant revision is finally disposed of.