The High Court treated the applicant's bail liability as 14 lakh rupees instead of 22 lakh rupees, upheld the deposit made by the applicant, made an interim bail order absolute, and stayed the non-bailable warrant.
Interim order made absolute; bail granted subject to deposit of Rs.14,00,000/-; non-bailable warrant stayed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21714 of 2018
Applicant :- Dr. Ram Narain Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh,A.K.S.Parihar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyan Prakash
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J.
The Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) C.B.I, Ghaziabad by an order dated 10th October, 2017 granted an application preferred by the accused petitioner as per provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the condition that the applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs.22,00,000/before getting his release on bail. Being aggrieved by the condition aforesaid, the accused petitioner preferred the instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the assertion that out of the total amount of Rs.1,97,75,000/-, an amount of Rs.68,29,293/- had actually not passed on to the vendor but the said amount is in safe custody of National Rural Health Mission.
According to the accused petitioner his liability at the best could be of Rs.14,00,000/- and not of Rs.22,00,000/- as stated in the bail order passed by the trial court.
Considering the submission of the accused petitioner, this Court on 13th July, 2018 while granting time to the opposite party to file counter affidavit passed an interim order in following terms:-
" Having considered all facts of the case while permitting the learned Additional Government Advocate to file counter affidavit to the application, as an interim measure, it is provided that in case, the applicant deposits an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- within a period of three weeks from today before the trial Court, his bail application shall be considered and decided on merits in accordance with law without raising any objection regarding delay in deposit of the amount. In the event of default on the part of the applicant, this order shall not affect regarding his right.
List on 10th of August, 2018.
For the period of three weeks, non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall remain stayed. This applicant shall deposit the aforesaid amount and surrender before the Court below within the aforesaid period."
In pursuance to the order aforesaid, as per learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner, a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- has already been deposited along with trial court. No counter to the miscellaneous petition has been filed so far.
Having considered the facts stated in the miscellaneous petition, I deem it appropriate to treat the liability of the present accused petitioner only to the extent of Rs.14,00,000/- only for the purposes of the grant of application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. without having any effect on the actual liability that is required to be determined on completion of the trial by the trial court.
Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is disposed of by making the interim order passed by this Court on 13th July, 2018 absolute. The accused petitioner if has deposited the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- before the trial court within the period prescribed on 13th July, 2018, the non-bailable warrant issued against him shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2018 Bhaskar
(Govind Mathur, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the 14 lakh rupees deposited by the applicant should be treated as the maximum bail liability despite higher total alleged recovery.
Whether the interim order regarding bail deposit conditions should be made absolute since the applicant complied with the deposit requirement.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Ram Narain Rawat
Govind Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
