Full Text
MOHINDER KUMARI
Through Mr. AK Goyal, Adv. DELHI... .. Petitioner ..... Respondent ..... Petitioner ..... Petitioner
Through l22l cRL.M.c. 2Oa8 | ?OLL J L BHOLLA
Through Mr.
Through Mr.
ORDER oa.o7.20LL These are the petitions under Section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioner against the order dated l"t June, 2OlI by virtue of which learned Additional Sessions Judge has suspended the sentence of one year RI and the imposition of payment of compensation to the tune of T1,50,000/- in exercise of his power in the Section 389
Cr.PC subject to the petitioner depositing 5O%o of the compensation amount on or before 12r'July,2OLl and they have been directed
Vo 1.
.1' 2011:DHC:11504 2. to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of tl,00,000/- and one suret5r of the like amount.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the condition which has been imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while suspending the sentence by way of direction to deposit 50% of the compensation amount is an illegal condition which cannot be complied with by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is a retired Government Servant and is unable to comply with such a direction. Reliance has been placed on the
JUDGMENT
Rajasthan High Court titled Amanreer Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan 2010 (3) RCR 556 (Criminal).
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment. The petitioner has been sentenced to RI of one year and has been directed to pay compensation to the tune of T1,50,0OO1-.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge while suspending the sentence has imposed a condition for payment of 50% of the amount of compensation which comes out to <75,000/-. The amount of t75,000/- in my opinion cannot be said to be an illegal condition for a precondition for release on bail. Reliance on judgment of the
Rajasthan High Court in this regard is not correct. That was a case where the amount of compensation which was directed to be paid by the
Court was T15 lakhs and the learned Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to deposit 50 % of the compensation amount which came i;r
3. a- to nearly t7.5 lakhs. It was in this context that the Rajasthan High Court had held that the condition which was imposed by the iearned Sessions Judge was onerous while in the present case the cheque and the compensation amount is very meager amount and only 50% of the said amount has been directed to be deposited which comes to Rs. 75,OOO|-, therefore no help can be withdrawn from the said judgment, I feel that the order of the Sessions Judge is quite valid and legal. There is no merit in the petitions and the same are dismissed. 5 4. At this stage the learned counsel of time to deposit the aforesaid deposit the amount is extended order be sent to the lower Court. Dasti. JULY 08, 2O1L HKaur for the petitioner seeks extension amount. The petitioner's time to till 31"t July, 2OIL. Copy of the o. lMp' v.K. SHALI,J J