.,-, I, 9.11.200 lN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKiM OF]DEF` SHEET CRIIIIHAL REVISION I)IL msAw ANSARI Versus STATE OF SIZOC" Order with Signature No. a of 2004 Pethioner / Appellant Flespondent Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order Present L< Hr. K. I. .hutia. learned eoun8el for the pet,ltioner. Mr. S. P. Wangdl, leamecl Advocate •®neral as818t,ed by Mr. d. .. Pradhan. leaned P`ibllc Prosectltor for tire State - respondent. Heard Mr. K. I. .tmtia. learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner. also heard Hr. a. P. Wangdl. learned jLidvocat,e €eneral a8Blsted by Mr. O. fl. Pradhan. learned Public Proseaitor for the State - responddnt. Adimlt.. No formal notice need be Sent t® the State -respondent. a8 Mr. .. I. Pradhan. learned Public Pro8ecator accepts notice on behalf of the State. Call for the lower court records. Llat thle case for headng ®n 6th Decefroer. 2004. I H|:I REREH dJUJEis )ul fut-And utpr°`E:fa#±# I.ui bud. hed •Ldy. a- ul, •yJ ial Date Order with Signature Office Note as to of o' action (if any) ler Order taken on Order 6.12.ZOO3.7.12.20 Present a Mr. Karma I. |hutla. Iearrred counsel for the petitioner. Mr. .. .. Pradhan, learned Public ProseaLtor for the State. Heard Mr. I(arma I. ]hutla. leaned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. d. .. pradhan. learned Public ProBea].tor fclr t,lie State ln part. To come up for further hearing tocorrow. \ _-_ ( . p. subba ' Oudge-- 4 Present : Mr. KarmatT. Bhutia; learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J. 8. Pradhan, 1eamed Publi Prosecutor for the State. Heard Mr. Karma T. Bhutia, learned Counse for the accused/petitioner and Mr. J. 8. Pradhan learned Public Prosecutor for the State -respondent. 2. The order dated 24.11.2004 passed by th 1eamed Sessions Juqge, South and West at Namc in Crimipal Misc. Case No.69 of 2004 granting bail t the petitioner herein, on certain conditions includin furnishing of bank guarantee .in the sum Rs.8,00,00,000/- (Rupees eight crores), and tw solvent sureties. ih the sum of Rs.1,00,00,0 (Rupees one crore) each, is the subject matter uncle .J. Serial . Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of of action (if any) Order Order taken on Order challenge in this revision petition. The submission of Mr. K. T. Bhutia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that, the provisions under Cr.P.C. do not stipulate imposihg of any condition requiring an accused to furnish bank guarantee. His further submission is that, the amount of bond fixed by the Court is so excessive, that the same tantamounts to denial of bail. 3. In support of his submission, on the question of the bank guarantee, the learned Counsel referred to and relied on the order dated 2.12.2002 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.4 of 2002. A perusal of this order shows that the petitioner in the said revision petition had raised the same plea as in the present case, i.e., that there was no provision of law empowering the court to impose condition for furnishing bank guarantee. The order further shows that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State had conceded to the legal position, and upon this, the revision was allowed setting aside the impugned order directing the learned Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter. In the present case also, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State concedes to the Order with Signature action (if any`}. taken on Order legal position as submitted by the learned Counse for the petitioner except the additional submissio that a case has to be decided on the facts an circumstances of each case. However, he fdirl conceded that as the legal point raised in the presen petition is identical to the point raised in Crimin Revision Petition No.4 of 2002, a similar approac may be adopted in the interest of j.ustice. 4. Admittedly, the legal issue in the presen petition and in Criminal Revision Petition No.4 o 2002 is one and same as indicated above. Keepin this in view, I do not find any justification for departure in approach in the present case. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order date 24.11.2004.is set aside, thus remitting the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, South and West for dealing with the bail petition afresh, keeping in view the observations made above. The parties shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, South and West on 9.12.2004. 6. A copy of this order may be sentto the learned Sessions Judge (S&W) at Namchi, for information and needful action. \;-. ,`. ( A. I. Subba ) £4tryJ- edc- chi aJ< touJ- nd h-ul e-¥,L=bY th+H,=#