1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1980 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 36/2009 against the order dated 17.6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 617 of 2009. and other miscellaneous petitions which are 34 in nos. as per schedule enclosed. Date of Order : Feb. 16 , 2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Ashok Mehta for the petitioner in all the misc. petitions. Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Manoj Sharma, for the complainants in all the misc. petitions. BY THE COURT : This order will dispose of this criminal misc. petition and other 34 criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner Mahesh Chand Choudhary, as mentioned in the schedule enclosed with this order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, 2 learned counsel for the complainants and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. This misc. petition and the misc. petitions mentioned in the schedule enclosed with this order have been filed against the order imposing condition of submission of bank guarantee before granting permission to travel abroad dated 4.8.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.7 Jaipur City in the criminal revisions which arise from the orders dated 17th June, 2009 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City Jaipur in the cases filed by the complainants. 4. The facts of the misc. petition No.1980 of 2009 are taken into consideration. The respondent No.2's firm M/s. S.N. Kapoor Exports and the petitioner's firm M/s. Saraswati Exports were having prolific business relations and had various agreements dated 1.4.2001, 20.11.2001, and 1.4.2003 with M/s. S.N. Kapoor Exports of which S.N. Kapoor and his son Vikram Kapoor were partners. As per agreement dated 1.4.2001 and 1.4.2003 representative of firm M/s.S.N. Kapoor Exports, Shri Vikram Kapoor had to look after and supervise various stages of carpet manufcutring at M/s. Saraswati Exports within their premises and then also sell their products in the export market. For the same a consideration of 10% commission was to be paid to Vikram Kapoor, however, post the agreement dated 1.4.2003, it was fixed at Rs.17 lakh per month which was to be paid in three installments on 11th, 21st, and the last day of the month as Rs. 6 lakh, Rs. 6 lakh and the remaining amount post TDS respectively. Continued business partnership and 3 amicable relations shared between the two business parties led the petitioner to deposit with the firm M/s. S.N. Kapoor Exports a total of 72 cheques for 2 years, in advance with the understanding that the cheques would only be encashed 3 months from the date on which the cheque was issued, as commission for all the required work done by respondent No.2. But due to some reasons some of the cheques were dishonoured and the respondent No.2 filed a complaints before the court concerned. Thereafter the petitioner has moved an application before the trial court whereby he sought permission to go abroad. The trial court after hearing the parties allowed the application of the petitioner and granted permission to go abroad by imposing following conditions : 1.ूाथȸ अिभयुƠ महेश चोधरȣ को 6 मास के िलये ǒवदेश जाने के िलये अनुमित दȣ जाती है। 2.इस अविध मे जब भी ूाथȸ / अिभयुƠ को Ûयायालय åयǒƠश: उपǔःथत होने का आदेश देगा, तब वह Ûयायालय मɅ उपǔःथत हो जायेगा। ूाथȸ / अिभयुƠ इस आशय का शपथ पऽ Ûयायालय मɅ पेश करेगा तथा पासपोट[ आथेǐरटȣ को भी इस आशय का शपथ पऽ अलग से पेश करेगा। 3. यǑद ूाथȸ/ अिभयुƠ के ǒवǽƨ इस Ûयायालय मɅ उपरोƠ चारो ूकरणो के अलावा Ǒकसी अÛय Ûयायालय मɅ फोजदारȣ ूकऱ हो तो उसे पासपोट[ आथेǐरǑट ǒवदेश जाने से राक सकती है। 4. ूाथȸ/ अिभयुƠ इसके सàबÛध मɅ पासपोट[ कȧ ितिथ बढ़वायेगा तथा नया पासपोट[ बनवायेगा तथा वह ǒवदेश जाने हेतु अÛय संबंिधत ओ◌ैपचाǐरकताऍ पूरȣ करेगा। 5. उपरोƠ शतȾ के अधीन ूाथȸ/ अिभयुƠ को छ: माह के िलये ǒवदेश जाने कȧ अनुमित ूदान कȧ जाती है।" 5. Against this order Criminal Revision Petition No.1206 of 2008 was filed. In the aforesaid revision petition, this court by order dated Dec. 2, 2008 passed following order : 4 “In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the order dated 6.8.2008 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate No.22 Jaipur City,Jaipur in Case No.72/2005 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court with the direction to rehear the matter on the point of permitting the accused non-petitioner No.2 to go abroad, after hearing all the parties concerned including the Passport officer, as also taking into consideration the fact regarding pendency of 39 cases.” 6. Against this order, the petitioner moved Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9094/2008 before the Apex Court, which has been decided by the order dated 19.1.2.2008, same reads as under : “Upon hearing counsel the court made the following ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition stating that the petitioner shall move the trial court for permission to go abroad and that he is willing to deposit in the said court amount covered by the purported cheques. If it is so, it is open to the trial court to take note of it and pass appropriate orders. We express no opinion in this regard. Accordingly, the special leave petition dismissed as withdrawn.” 7. After passing of the order by the Apex Court, the petitioner submitted before the trial court that he is willing to deposit Bank Guarantee. Thereafter the petitioner had moved an application for granting permission to go abroad in all the cases. After hearing both the parties, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City Jaipur vide its order dated 17.6.2009, 5 passed the following order : “अत: िनàनिलǔखत शतȾ पर ूाथȸ अिभयुƠ सं. 2 महेश चोधरȣ को Ǒदनांक 16.6.2010 तक ǒवदेश जाने आने कȧ अनुमित दȣ जाती है Ǒक :- (1) वह आदेश कȧ Ǒदनांक से 15 Ǒदवस मɅ ूकरण मे ूưगत चैक कȧ धनरािश के समान बैक गारÖटȣ Ûयायालय मɅ ूःतुत करेगा, (2) उपरोƠ अविध मɅ जब भी Ûयायालय ूाथी-अिभयुƠ को åयǒƠगत ǽप से उपǔःथत होने का आदेश देगी, तब वह ǒबना ǒवलàब Ǒकये Ûयायालय मɅ उपǔःथत हो जायेगा । इस आशय का शपथ पऽ वह Ûयायालय के सम¢ तथा पासपोट[ आथेǐरटȣ के सम¢ ूथक ूथक ूःतुत करेगा, (3) वह ू×येक ǒवदेश याऽा से पूव[ ःवयं अथवा अपने अिधवƠा के माÚयम से Ûयायालय को, ǔजस ǒवदेश कȧ याऽा करनी है उसके नाम तथा ǒवदेश मɅ ǽकने कȧ सàभाǒवत अविध से अवगत करवायेगा । Ûयायालय Ʈारा अिधरोǒपत उपरोƠ शतȾ का ूाथȸ अिभयुƠ महेश चोधरȣ के ǒवदेश जाने के सàबÛध मɅ उसके पासपोट[ वीजा सàबÛधी िनयमो के तहत पासपोट[ वीजा के नवीनीकरण, जÞती इ×याǑद के सàबÛध मɅ पासपोट[ के अिधकारो पर कोई ूितकूल ूभाव नहȣ पड़ेगा। अथा[त पासपोट[ ऑथे◌ाǐरटȣ ूाथȸ- अिभयुƠ महेश चोधरȣ के ǒवदेश जाने के सàबÛध मɅ अपनाई जाने वाली ूǑबया मɅ अपने ूशासिनक अिधकारो का उपये◌ाग करने के िलए ःवतंऽ रहेगɅ । आदेश सुनाया गया । ” 8. Aggrieved from this order dated 17.6.2009, the petitioner moved revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.7 Jaipur City, Jaipur. The revisional court also dismissed the revision petitions vide order dated 4.8.2009. The operative portion of the order reads as under : “फलःवǽप िनगरानीकार Ʈारा ूःतुत िनगरानी यािचकाये ǒवǽƮ आदेश Ǒदनांक 17/6/2009 एवं 2/7/2009 एतµ Ʈारा िनरःत कȧ जाती है, परÛतु यह ःपƴ Ǒकया जाता है Ǒक उƠ आदेश एंव उसमɅ अंǑकत एक वष[ कȧ अविध आज के Ǒदन से ूभावी होगी । आदेश कȧ ूित के साथ तलब शुदा दोनो पऽावलीयॉ संÉया 616/2009, ǒवबम कपूर बनाम मे0 सरःवती एÈसपोट[स व अÛय पऽावली सÉया 633/2009 सुरेÛि नाथ कपूर बनाम मɅ0 सरःवती एÈसपोट[स व अÛय ǒवƮान अिधनःथ Ûयायालय को 6 ूेǒषत कȧ जावे। आदेश कȧ ूित भी अÛय पऽावलीयो मɅ शािमल कȧ जावे । 9. Against the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the revisional court, this criminal misc. petition and the misc. petitions mentioned in the schedule have been preferred. 10. Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner contended that the orders of the lower court and the revisional court regarding imposing of condition of Bank guarantee are absolutely illegal and perverse with respect to the facts and material on record and both the courts have failed to properly consider the established legal position with respect to the case at hand since it is very well established now that the right to travel and move freely is a fundamental right being regulated by the Passports Act. Section 6(f) of the Act does provide for a reasonable restriction on such a right in case a criminal case is pending against an individual. He further contended that the legislative intent in providing such a provision in the Passports Act was simply to ensure that people having criminal cases pending do not simply abscond to another country in order to avoid such proceedings and the only requirement necessary to be ascertained before granting such permission is whether the accused intends to run away or avoid the pending proceedings by leaving the country or not. He has further contended that in the instant case the petitioner has already submitted detailed information with respect to his property and business to the court and the same is on record. The revisional court has failed to apply correctly the legal position although it has appreciated the same correctly in the impugned order and the same has resulted in abuse of process of court. The 7 learned counsel argued that in these circumstances the order passed by the lower court may be set aside in relation to furnishing of the Bank guarantee to the extent mentioned in the cheques for permission to going abroad and the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the revisional court upholding such order may also be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the learned Advocate Mr. Manoj Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 submitted that the petition is not maintainable because in compliance of the orders dated 17.6.2009 passed by ACJM and order dated 4.8.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner submitted Bank Guarantee before the trial court on 5.11.2009 and the accused petitioner concealed this important fact from this Hon'ble Court. He has also raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., since the petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision before the Additional Sessions Judge. In such circumstances second revision filed by the accused in the garb of section 482 Cr.P.c. is not maintainable under section 397(3) Cr.P.C., which reads as under : “397(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the either of them.” He has further contended that the petition filed by the petitioner has become infructuous since he has already furnished the Bank guarantee in compliance of the impugned order. Thus it is clear that the miscellaneous petitions be dismissed as infructuous. He has further drawn the attention of this court that the petitioner has not disclosed 8 the true and correct facts of the case before this Hon'ble Court, which are as under : (i) That the above mentioned passport of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary was impounded vide order dated 18.2.2005 passed by the then Passport Officer, Jaipur under section 10 (3)(e) & (h) of the Passport Act on the ground of pendency of various criminal cases against him. (ii) That the order dated 18.2.2005 was upheld by the Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi while dismissing the appeal of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary vide order dated 17.1.2006 on the ground that the cases are still pending against Mahesh Kumar Choudahry and there is no change in the circumstances. (iii) That these orders were challenged by Mahesh Kumar Choudhary before the Rajasthan High Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2264/06 which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.8.2006. (iv) That Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary filed review petition of order dated 11.8.06 before Hon'ble High Court, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.11.06. (v) That Mahesh Kumar Choudhary filed a review of appeallate order and restoration of passport facilities before Chief Passport Officer, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division, Patiala House, New Delhi on 20.5.2008. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Chief Passport Officer dismissed the application for restoration of passport facilities on 23.6.08. (vi) That feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi, Mahesh Kumar Choudhary filed an application before Hon'ble High Court in writ petition No. 2264/06, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 8.9.2008. (vii) That feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by Chief Passport Officer and Hon'ble High Court, Mahesh Kumar Choudhary filed a D.B. Spl. Appeal on 15.9.2009. Meaning thereby the order of impounding passport of Mahesh Kumar Choudhary has been affirmed upto the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. It is also reveal that the Passport of 9 said Mahesh Choudhary was valid only upto 16.5.2009. (viii) That in the past inspite of impounding of Passport, Mahesh Choudhary sought permission from the trial court to go abroad which was challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No. 1206/08. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the revision of respondent No.2 Vikram Kapoor on 2.12.08 by mentioning of the argument of the counsel for the accused Mahesh Choudhary is quoted herewith :- The accused respondent no.2 is also ready to give the bank guarantee.” (ix) The matter is remanded to the trial court with a direction to rehear the matter on the point of permitting the accused non- petitioner no.2 to go abroad after hearing all the parties concerned including the passport officer as also taking into consideration the fact regarding pendency of 39 criminal cases. “ (x) That it is important to mention here that during the course of hearing by the High Court, affidavit was filed by both the parties and the High Court had taken note of 39 cases. (xi) That Mahesh Kumar Choudhary challenged order dated 2.12.08 passed by the Rajasthan High Court in Special Leave to Appeal ( Crl.) No. 9094/08 before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing passed an order dated 19.12.08. (xii) That in the Spl. Leave petition before the Supreme Court, Mahesh Kumar Choudahry express his willingness to deposit the amount of cheques and on such expression, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted him to withdraw the Spl. Leave Petition. Mahesh Kumar Choudhary has not deposited the amount of cheques as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.” He has further contended that the petitioner himself offered before the Apex Court that he wishes to deposit the amount covered by the purported cheques and on such submission of the accused petitioner the Supreme C0urt passed the 10 order mentioned above. 12. I have pondered over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor and also gone through the petitions filed by the accused petitioner and the reply to the petitions submitted by the respondent No.2, documents submitted by the respondent No.2 and the earlier order passed by this court on the revision petition and the order passed by the Apex Court in the SLP filed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has already submitted Bank guarantee in pursuance of the order passed by the trial court, in my considered opinion there is no need to further go into the arguments submitted by the accused petitioner. 13. For these reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and the order passed by the revisional court. This misc. petition and the misc. petitions mentioned in the schedule are dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the matters as early as possible. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/ 11 SCHEDULE (1) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1981 of 2009 (2) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1982 of 2009 (3) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1983 of 2009 (4) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1984 of 2009 (5) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1985 of 2009 (6) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1986 of 2009 (7) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1987 of 2009 (8) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1988 of 2009 (9) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1989 of 2009 (10) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1990 of 2009 (11) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1991 of 2009 (12) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1992 of 2009 (13) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. 12 S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1993 of 2009 (14) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1994 of 2009 (15) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1995 of 2009 (16) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1996 of 2009 (17) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1997 of 2009 (18) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1998 of 2009 (19) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1999 of 2009 (20) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2000 of 2009 (21) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2001 of 2009 (22) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2002 of 2009 (23) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2003 of 2009 (24) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2004 of 2009 (25) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. of 2009 under 13 (26) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2006 of 2009 (27) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2007 of 2009 (28) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2008 of 2009 (29) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2009 of 2009 (30) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2010 of 2009 (31) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2011 of 2009 (32) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2012 of 2009 (33) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2013 of 2009 (34) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2014 of 2009 ****** 14 (1) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1981 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 06/2009 against the order dated 17.,6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 624 of 2009. (2) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1982 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 36/2009 against the order dated 17.,6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 217 of 2005. (3) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1983 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 19/2009 against the order dated 17.,6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 675 of 2009. (4) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1984 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 16/2009 against the order dated 17.,6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 623 of 2009. (5) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1985 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order 15 dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 09/2009 against the order dated 17.,6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 616 of 2009. (6) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1986 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 13/2009 against the order dated 17.,6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 621 of 2009. (7) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1987 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 12/2009 against the order dated 17.,6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 625 of 2009. (8) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1988 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 20/2009 against the order dated 17.,6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 609 of 2009. (9) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1989 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 18/2009 against the order dated 17.6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 632 of 2009. 16 (10) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1990 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 29/2009 against the order dated 17.6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 627 of 2009. (11) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1991 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing condition of submission of Bank Guarantee by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.7 Jaipur City Jaipur in Appeal No. 07/2009 against the order dated 17.,6.2009 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 Jaipur City in Case No. 615 of 2005. (12) Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1992 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.8.2009 imposing