CRM No. M-8094 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-8094 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 09, 2011 Dr. Ashok Kumar Kathuria .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. C.M.Munjal, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Seema Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.2. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. to the extent of imposing a pre-condition of deposit of 50% amount of penalty, vide which the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed. CRM No. M-8094 of 2010 2 It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there is no such condition provided under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 nor can such like condition be imposed by the Court which would be totally unreasonable and arbitrary. In support of this contention, reliance has placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amarjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 543. Counsel for the petitioner has argued on same lines and it is prayed that the present petition be allowed. Counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that there is no statutory mandate with regard to the deposit of 50% of the amount of penalty prior to the grant of relief of bail or for that matter even for consideration of an application for the said purpose. Although it has been said that reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the Court while considering the grant of bail. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As per provisions contained under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, grant of anticipatory bail can be subjected to the conditions, which have been provided in the Statute itself. Apart from those conditions, reasonable restrictions can also be imposed by the Court considering the application for grant of bail but those have to fulfil the test of reasonableness and should not be arbitrary which would virtually render the claim and relief redundant, as in the present case. In view of the above, order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, is modified to the CRM No. M-8094 of 2010 3 extent that the condition of deposit of 50% of the amount of penalty shall not be a part of the order. Petition stands allowed in above terms. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) December 09, 2011 JUDGE pj