Full Text
Translation output
$-23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1464/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.4987/2014
GURU SWARUP SRIVASTAVA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Pragya Singh & Mr. Imran Ali, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 1464/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.4987/2014
GURU SWARUP SRIVASTAVA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Pragya Singh & Mr. Imran Ali, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondent Tlirough: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State Mr. Kishan Nautiyal, Advocate for
/'Jk respondent No.2 ^ CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
25.03.2014 Petitioner is a resident ofMumbai and is facing trial in Delhi in six complaints cases under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in which he has been asked to furnish surety of Rupees Ten Lacs each. Inability of petitioner to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction oftrial court has incurred fine totaling to ^1,80,000/-. The challenge in this petition is to tihe impugned orders imposing costs and refusing to accept surety ofhis wife, who is a teacher in Mumbai.
Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for respondent No. 1-State.
Mr. Kishan Nautiyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 accepts notice and submits that it would be appropriate if petitioner furnishes a Fixed
Deposit Receipt of ^10,00,000/- and another Fixed Deposit Receipt of
^1,80,000/- both in the name of complainant and he be permitted to furnish surety of his wife, as this will ensure his presence before trial
Crl. M.C. No.1464/2014 Page 1 2014:DHC:7494 court.
Upon hearing and on perusal ofimpugned orders, Ifind that in the facts and circumstances ofthis case, itwould suffice ifpetitioner brings a
Fixed Deposit Receipt of ?10,00,000/- in the name of complainant and deposit it with trial court within four weeks and furnishes surety ofJiis wife. This will amply secure his presence at trial. It is made clear that the
Fixed Deposit Receipt of^10,00,000/- would be in respect ofsix pending complaint cases and this FDR be retained by trial court till the final outcome ofthese complaint cases. Let itbe also done in respect ofFixed deposit Receipt of^1,80,000/- aswell.
To the aforesaid extent, the impugned orders of 13^^ February, 2012, lO^*" July, 2012 and 1''March, 2014 stand modified. Needless to say petitioner shall abide by the undertaking given before Sessions Court in the order of 10^^ April, 2012 and in any event, if petitioner is unable to appear before trial court on medical ground or because of any other pressing necessity, then trial proceedings will not be deferred on any ground and the proceedings will continue while exempting petitioner from appearance on any particular date, as it is undertaken on behalf of lit petitionerthat his identity intrial in such asituationwill notbe disputed.
This petition and application are disposed ofinaforesaid terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 25,2014 r —Q9S 'tA I .5"^4§11^
Crl. M.C. No.1464/2014 Page 2 2014:DHC:7494
Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State Mr. Kishan Nautiyal, Advocate for
/'Jk respondent No.2 ^ CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
25.03.2014 Petitioner is a resident ofMumbai and is facing trial in Delhi in six complaints cases under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in which he has been asked to furnish surety of Rupees Ten Lacs each. Inability of petitioner to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction oftrial court has incurred fine totaling to ^1,80,000/-. The challenge in this petition is to tihe impugned orders imposing costs and refusing to accept surety ofhis wife, who is a teacher in Mumbai.
Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for respondent No. 1-State.
Mr. Kishan Nautiyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 accepts notice and submits that it would be appropriate if petitioner furnishes a Fixed
Deposit Receipt of ^10,00,000/- and another Fixed Deposit Receipt of
^1,80,000/- both in the name of complainant and he be permitted to furnish surety of his wife, as this will ensure his presence before trial
Crl. M.C. No.1464/2014 Page 1 2014:DHC:7494 court.
Upon hearing and on perusal ofimpugned orders, Ifind that in the facts and circumstances ofthis case, itwould suffice ifpetitioner brings a
Fixed Deposit Receipt of ?10,00,000/- in the name of complainant and deposit it with trial court within four weeks and furnishes surety ofJiis wife. This will amply secure his presence at trial. It is made clear that the
Fixed Deposit Receipt of^10,00,000/- would be in respect ofsix pending complaint cases and this FDR be retained by trial court till the final outcome ofthese complaint cases. Let itbe also done in respect ofFixed deposit Receipt of^1,80,000/- aswell.
To the aforesaid extent, the impugned orders of 13^^ February, 2012, lO^*" July, 2012 and 1''March, 2014 stand modified. Needless to say petitioner shall abide by the undertaking given before Sessions Court in the order of 10^^ April, 2012 and in any event, if petitioner is unable to appear before trial court on medical ground or because of any other pressing necessity, then trial proceedings will not be deferred on any ground and the proceedings will continue while exempting petitioner from appearance on any particular date, as it is undertaken on behalf of lit petitionerthat his identity intrial in such asituationwill notbe disputed.
This petition and application are disposed ofinaforesaid terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 25,2014 r —Q9S 'tA I .5"^4§11^
Crl. M.C. No.1464/2014 Page 2 2014:DHC:7494
JUDGMENT