IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4650 OF 2008 Mrs.Ramona M. Chandiramani ..... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent A.M.Saraogi, for the applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P., for the State. CORAM : SHRI V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. (Vacation Court) DATED : 26th DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1. This is an application for modification of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 18-12-2008, to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. Briefly stated, one Dinesh was domestic servant employed by the complainant. He allegedly assaulted the complainant in the morning of 24-11-2008, took away keys of cupboard and pushed her in the bathroom. The complainant became unconscious. Thereafter, Dinesh committed theft of valuables, including jewelery, cash amount, camera etc. The complainant is a old-aged woman. She reported the incident to her son. The offence was later on reported to the police station. The main accused – Dinesh was arrested on 28-11-2008. At his instance, certain jewelery articles etc., came to be recovered. 3. According to the prosecution, after recovery of the jewelery articles, said Dinesh was interrogated further and one co-accused Shankar Chaudhary was arrested. On 04-12-2008, cash amount of Rs.45,000/- came to be recovered at the instance of said Shankar Chaudhary. On 07- 12-2008, said Shankar Chaudhary gave a confessional statement to the effect that he had given cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the applicant, with whom he was working as a domestic servant. 4. The applicant apprehended her arrest in connection with Crime No.101/2008 registered by the police against said Dinesh and other accused. The applicant therefore, moved the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail vide Anticipatory Bail Application No.1415/2008. 5. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the nature of allegations made against the applicant and the evidence collected during the investigation. Suffice it to say that on 18-12-2008, the learned Sessions Judge, heard the bail application and granted the application in terms of final order, which is reproduced as follows : - “Application in respect of Manoj Chandiramani is disposed of as he is not named in the papers of investigation and he will not be made accused in this case. Relief of anticipatory bail is granted to Smt.Ramona Chandiramani subject to deposit of Rs.2 lacs by her in court within eight days from today. In case of her arrest in CR No.101-08 registered for offence u/s 392, 394, 381, 411 r/w 120-B of IPC the Malabar Hill PS shall release her on her furnishing PR & SB in the sum of Rs.10000/-. She is to co- operate with the police during investigation. Amount when deposited is to be kept in FD immediately, till further orders. 6. The applicant is aggrieved by the condition whereby she has been directed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in the court within a period of eight days. 7. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Saraogi for the applicant and the A.P.P. Mr.Adsule, for the State. 8. The purport of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to protect a person who apprehends arrest which is not required by law. It is well settled that where the arrest is likely to humiliate any person or is likely to be effected without any serious reason, the protection can be granted. Infact, the expression “anticipatory bail” is a mis-nomer. What the law provides under Section 438 is a direction for grant of bail in the event of arrest. Needless to say, only if arrest is effected then the direction to release the accused or beneficiary of such provision would come into effect. The conditions which are required to be taken into account are enumerated in sub-clause (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. These conditions shown as (i) to (iv) of sub-clause (2), do not contain any provision to direct making of deposit in terms of money. The Maharashtra Amendment to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., would show that the considerations interalia for grant of bail under Section 438 also include consideration (iii) that the object of the accusation if is to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by taking him/her so arrested, such application may be granted. 9. Once the learned Sessions Judge noticed that such considerations would cover case of the applicant, then it will have to be said that her arrest was not found necessary for the purpose of investigation. I am of the opinion that the condition imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Bombay, for depositing Rs.2,00,000/-, is onerous and outside the pale of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 10. The Court of Sessions is not required to ensure recovery which is the prime concern of the investigating agency. By the impugned order, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing the bail bonds and the amount deposited by her is further directed to be kept in FD. There is no legal foundation to the impugned direction. Needless to say, the learned Sessions Judge has acted arbitrarily while issuing the impugned directions. The conditions for bail can be modified in view of Section 440(2) of Cr.P.C., as well as in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. 11. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned condition is set aside. However, the applicant is directed to attend the concerned police station on each Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00 a.m. To 1.00 p.m., and to co-operate with the Investigating Officer, Malbar Hill Police Station. Her failure to attend the police station and to render cooperation with the Investigating Officer, may entail cancellation of the liberty granted by way of anticipatory bail. If any recovery is effected from the applicant during the above period of her short presence on above days at the police station with the Investigating Officer, the same may be deemed as recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in view of dictum in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. V/s. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. The condition to attend the police station is however, co-terminus with filing of chargesheet in the Court or after a period of two months, whichever is earlier. ( V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. )