^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR, Cr.M.P. No. Of 2010 PETITIONERS 1. Viral Mehta, son of Shri Navneet Lal Mehta, aged about 38 years, resident of Balco Nagar, Korba. SingteBenoh A ^%..···';'J^ 2. ..'••^-^.y^'7 '" ?-••''' .\i'-"'' ^* ^.••' -. >v'~ .\-'3' ^..-••"^y'^' ^^v^\^y' ^^ Vs Anup Mahapatra, son of Shri R.P. Mahapatra, aged about 42 years, resident of Krishna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Township, Korba (CG) 3. Deepak Narang, son of Shri P.S. Narang, aged about 36 years, resident of Qr. No.l/C/94, Balco Nagar, Korba (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Balco Nagar, Korba (CG) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 AGAINST THE CONDfTION NO.'D' IMPOSED VIDE ORDER DATED 22.2.2010, FOR AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL GRANTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. BY LEARNED 2ND ADDlflON^AL SESSfONS 3UDGE rFTCI, KORBA BENCH_ PRESIDED OVER BY SHRI M.D. JAGDALLA IN S.T N0.16/10 RESPONDENT f3 Hl6HCOURtOFCHI-IATTIS6ARHAraiLASPyR Inole >iaw. Cr.M.P.No. 265 of 2010 PETmONERS ViralMehtaand RESPON&ENT Stdte of Ghhattisqarh. Shri Syrendro Singh.learned Senior Counsel assis't-ei Shri Abhishek Sinha,counsel forthepetitibriers. Shri Akhil ^ishra, Dy. ©ovt,Advoccte foF theState. PETmON UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL With the consentof the parS-ies,' fhe .mct-t'er' is heard • findly. '• : ' • • ; ,'; , .. :: •"'':':;::/ ;• —•J?Seisentpetition fiied under Sectiote'482 of theCode of Grimina! Procedure is directed against the order dated 22.2.2010 passedby 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Korba in tSessi6nsTrialNo. 16/10 whepeby the jearned Addjtional " Sessions judge hqs imposed eertsin conditjons on ,the petitioners in acase where the bai] has besn gronted td them by the Supreme Court vide order darf'ed 19.2.2010, 2. Brief facts of the ccse are thest the petitiohers are the Qccused-in SessionsTridjNo. 16/10 andthey weFegrantedbail by the Supreme Court vide drder dated 19.2.2010 vide ' Annexure P-1. While grcurt-ing baJlto the petitiQnsrs, Supreme Gourt has nol- fixed any condition cind pursuwit to that the petifioners have produced "fhe scud order beforethe concerned Court- on 22.2.2010. However,on 22.2.2010 whilereieQsingths petitionehs on bQi), learned trial Jydge hds imposed ceFtain 2 coriditipnsand cbndition No. 'D' is to the effeet that on eyery day of hearing fhe petitioners shall remain preserit at II om and in case they violate this condition, their bail would aytomoticdly stand eancelled.It has been crgued by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners thdt the lear-ned trial Courl- is riot empowered to impose oiny such condition and bail order cdn only be canceted OF modifisd bythe Supreme Coyr!' as the order has been passed by it; 3. While issuing notice to the State, State Counse! wois directed to file peply. State counse! submits that no repiy is needed and AHis Court can detete condition No. •'D' as imposed 'by^hecoyrl'.below. ';1-;'.'':'.'':,.;'":: . . ' , • :'; ': :"' ! :-' . • 4; In view 6f the aboye statement of the stoct'e courisel the-se'EMed !ega! position, conditlon No.^iy as imposed bY the trialjuclgeinorderdafed 22.2.2010 Is deleted.Itjs,however', expecfed frem the petitioners that they will co-opepate in the tnal cyid wi 11 not seek unnecessary adjournment in the eo.se. 5. The petition isaccopdinglydisposedof. Sd//- PritmkerDiwaker Judge