sat 1 cri.wp 3991-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3991 OF 2011 Shri Appasaheb Dattu Patil & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Prashant S. Bhavake for the Petitioners. Mrs.A.A. Mane, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. (VACATION COURT JUDGE) DECEMBER 28, 2011 P.C. :- 1 Not on board. Taken on board on production. 2 Heard learned Counsel Mr.Prashant Bhavake for the petitioners. 3 This petition is filed for deletion of condition imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, while granting bail to the petitioners in Crime No.117/2011 registered with Shahupuri Police Station for the ofences punishable u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. The operative sat 2 cri.wp 3991-2011 part of the Order concerning the petitioners runs as under ;- “(v) On applicants Chandrakant Appa Patil, Appasaheb Dattu Patil, Dattatray Dhondi Patil and Aruna Sarjerao Patil depositing Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lacs only) jointly or severally, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur, (the Nazir of the said Court shall deposit/invest the said amount in the name of the Court, in fixed deposit scheme of State Bank of India fetching highest rate of interest, the fate of the said amount to be decided by the Trial Court at the conclusion of Trial), the said applicants be released on their executing PB and SB bail of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only), each with condition that they shall attend before the Investigating Officer as and when directed in writing. (vi) They shall not tamper any of the prosecution witness. (vii) They shall not leave the district without prior permission of the Trial Court {the Court of Magistrate} (viii) They shall submit their passport before the Court of Magistrate within one week of their release on bail. (ix) It is made clear that breach of any of the conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of the bail.” 4 It is surprising to note that the learned sat 3 cri.wp 3991-2011 Additional Sessions Judge has imposed condition on four applicants to deposit Rs.25 lacs jointly or severally. It is difficult to understand as to how the said condition can be complied unless all the four applicants co-operate and they decide to deposit Rs.25 lacs. Even if one of the applicants refuses to co-operate, the others will remain inside. Apart from this, it appears that the main culprit in this case is one Sanjay Patil who has been refused anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and this Court. After withdrawing Special Leave Petition from the Supreme Court, he had again approached this Court. His anticipatory bail application was rejected again by this Court on 27th December, 2011. 5 It is submitted that the appellants are poor agriculturists. From the incident, it appears that their role was limited. The condition, it is submitted, of depositing Rs.25,00,000/- is too onerous to be sustained. After having gone through the papers before me, I have come to the conclusion that the condition of depositing the amount by two accused jointly or severally is not a correct way of imposing the condition. Secondly, the condition sat 4 cri.wp 3991-2011 obviously appears to be onerous and therefore, it needs to be deleted. 6 Hence, I pass the following Order :- 7 Writ Petition is allowed. 8 The condition directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.25 lakhs jointly or severally in the Court of Judaical Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur, stands deleted. 9 The trial court shall act upon the copy of this Order authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J)