High Court of DelhiCRL.REV.P./797/2018

Vikram Sachdeva & ANR v. The State & ANR

2018-09-13Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri2 pages

$~80 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.

797/2018, CRL.M.A.

32031/2018, CRL.M.A.

32032/2018 VIKRAM SACHDEVA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar.

Versus

THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R

% 13.09.2018 Issue notice. Mr. G.M. Farooqui, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State accepts notice.

This petition impugns an order dated 12.09.2018 cancelling the petitioner's bail bond as well as his bail because the surety amount of Rs. 50,000/-, furnished through a fixed deposit, stood matured on 22.11.2016 and the said amount stood credited to the surety's Saving Bank account. The impugned order has reasoned that since the amount went into the surety's account, he must have been aware or otherwise would have been intimated of it or has enjoyed the benefit of the same. In effect, the petitioner has been on bail without any effective bail bond, for the past two years.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said bail bond for Rs. 50,000/- was one of seven FDRs furnished in three separate appeals; it appears that the FDR bearing no. 4011672058, upon

maturity, was credited into the account of the surety, without due intimation either to the surety or to the petitioner. He submits that there was no attempt to mislead, defraud or breach the condition for bail. The petitioner values his liberty and would have never let this unintended situation come to pass, had the Surety intimated the petitioner about the encashment of the fixed deposit.

The petitioner has been taken into custody. On 12.09.2018, the petitioner presented a substitution of the said fixed deposit. It was declined. However, in view of the submission that the petitioner himself was not aware of the encashment of the said FDR, it would be harsh to visit upon him the consequences of judicial custody.

In the aforementioned circumstance, the Court deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, that the petitioner's bail be restored, subject to a bail bond of Rs. 1 lac with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Appellate Court concerned.

The petition stands disposed-off in the above terms. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master. NAJMI WAZIRI, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 RW