Ravinder Singh Thakur v. State N.C.T. of Delhi

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)

¶1This is a petition under Section 440 (2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for reduction of surety amount of Rs. 50 lacs as stipulated in the order dated 5th August, 2008 whereby the Petitioner has been directed to furnish two sureties of a sum of Rs. 50 lacs.

¶2Section 440 reads as follows:

"440. Amount of bond and reduction thereof.-(1) The amount of every bond executed under this chapter

shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.

(2) The High Court or Court of Session may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced."

¶3I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Bank as well as the State. I am of the view that the surety asked to be furnished by the Trial Court is rather excessive.

¶4Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the Petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. However, the Petitioner shall surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer, against receipt. The learned counsel for the Petitioner says that, in fact, Petitioner's passport is already in the possession of the Investigating Officer. If that is so, then the IO shall retain the passport during the pendency of proceedings before the trial court.

¶5With these observations, the present petition is allowed. Order dasti.

August 22, 2008

MANMOHAN, J. rb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. M.C. 2698/2008 % DATE OF DECISION : 22nd AUGUST, 2008 Ravinder Singh Thakur ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manu Sharma , Advocate versus State of NCT of Delhi ….Respondent Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State. Mr. A. Aggarwal, Advocate for the Complainant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?