CRL.M.C./1889/2018 of NEERAJ KUMAR Vs STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 1889/2018

NEERAJ KUMAR

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Murari Kumar, Ms. Nidhi Singh,Mr.AmanJhaandMs.ShwetaShukla, Advs.Mr.AmanJhaandMs.ShwetaShukla, Advs.

versus

STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR

..... RespondentsMs . Neelam Sharma, APP with SISatyavir Singh, P.S. Patel NagarMr. Amit Shukla, Adv. for respondentno. 2

Through

AND

+CRL.M.C. 3818/2017 and Crl. M.A. no. 6732/2018

TARUN JUNEJA..... PetitionerThroughMr. Amit Shukla, Adv.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

ThroughMs. Neelam Sharma, APP

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

%05.12.2018

Vide order dated 4[th]September, 2017 trial court had admitted

respondent no. 2 Tarun Juneja on bail on the following conditions:-

“Considering the fact that accused/applicant is running in JC since

3.6.2017.Investigation of the case qua accused/applicant is almostcomplete. Chargesheet has already been filed. Conclusion of trial is likelyto take time.Hence, accused/applicant is granted bail subject to thefollowing conditions:-

(i)that accused shall not misuse his liberty byindulging in similar act;(ii)thataccusedshallnottamperwiththeevidence/witnesses;(iii)that accused shall not threaten witnesses;(iv)that accused shall not leave the countrywithout prior permission of the court;

(v)that the accused shall not attempt to placehimself beyond the reach of surety;(iv)that the accused shall deposit 50% of thecheated amount as security in the form of BankGuarantee to be deposited in the Court within 2weeks from today.”

Respondent no. 2 in Crl. M.C. no. 1889/2018, filed Crl. M.C. No.3818/2017 thereby challenged the condition of deposit of 50% of thecheated amount while admitting respondent No. 2 on bail. The said petitionwas taken up for hearing on 18[th]September, 2017. During hearing of thesaid petition on 18[th]September, 2017, respondent no. 2 offered to deposit`14.40 lacs with the Registrar General of this Court within 10 days.Operative part of the said order dated 18[th]September, 2017 is as under:-

“Keepinginviewthefactsandcircumstances of the present case, the conditioni.e., the accused shall deposit 50% of the cheatedamount as security in the form of Bank Guaranteeto be deposited in the Court within 2 weeks fromtoday, imposed by the Trial Court vide its orderdated 04.09.2017 is modified to the extent that thepetitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing apersonal bond and two surety bonds in the sum of`50,000/- each to the entire satisfaction of theTrial Court subject to deposit of `14.40 lacs withthe Registrar General of this Court. Sureties shallfile the FDR/TDR as proof of their financialsoundness.

List on 14.12.2017 for arguments on mainpetition.”

It is not in dispute that `14.40 lacs has been deposited with theRegistrar General of this Court by the respondent no. 2.

Petitioner Neeraj Kumar has filed Crl. M.C. no. 1889/2018 forcancellation of bail granted to respondent no. 2,vide order dated 4[th]September, 2017. It has also been prayed that `14.40 lacs deposited in thisCourt by the respondent no. 2 in Crl. M.C. 3818/2017 be released to M/s.Garvita Management Services Pvt. Ltd.

It is trite law that while granting bail, Court cannot impose conditionof deposit of cheated amount. However, offer of an accused to deposit themoney can be considered at the time of granting bail. Accordingly, I am ofthe view that trial court was not right in imposing the conditions of deposit

of 50% of the cheated amount without any such offer given by the accused,for granting the bail to accused.

Respondent no. 2 has already deposited `14.40 lacs in Court asoffered by him at the time of hearing of Crl. M.C. no. 3818/2017 and inview thereof order dated 4[th]September, 2017 was modified to the extent ofdepositing the offered amount. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 in Crl.M.C. no. 1889/2018 and petitioner in Crl. M.C. no. 3818/2017 submits thatthis amount may keep on lying deposited with the Registrar General of thisCourt during the pendency of lis between the parties.

Inviewoftheabove,Crl.M.C.1889/2018isdismissedandCrl.M.C.3818/2017 is disposed of in terms of interim order dated 18[th]September, 2017.

DECEMBER 05, 2018/r.bararia

A.K. PATHAK, J.