£! HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPLICANTS: NON-APPLICANT: Criminal Misc. Petition No.110 of 2011 1. Mr. Wu Chunnan S/o Mr. Wu Yulin, GM, SEPCO, birth place anhui China, Residence in Jinan China, Shandong Province, China, G. 14559279 2. Liu Gaoxuan S/o Liu Baoting, aged about 29 years, R/o Xiangcheng City, henna province, China, pp No.G 25047231 3. Wang Weiquing S/o Wang Baoxing, aged about 25 yeais, R/o Liaocheng City, Jinan province in China, pp No.G 31241713 All are working at SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation, Balco, Korba (C.G.) Versus Stgte of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balco, Distt. Korba (C.G.) {Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Pj'esent: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Deputy Govt. Advocate fpr the State/ respondent. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble hflr. T.P. Sharma,_J ORAL ORDER (28-3-2011) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 21-2-2011 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba in Criminal Revision No.5/2011, affirming the order dated 23-12-2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has refused to accept deposit instead of recognizance in accordance with Section 445 of the Code. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copies of other documents, apptications and order sheets. ,.^1.-;-B..'\ s»s 3. Vide order dated 30-4-2010 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.6369/2010 the Supreme CSurt has ordered the petitioners to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial Court in its discretion and also imposed a condition directing surrender of passports of the petitioners. In compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court, the trial Court has passed order that if the petitioners furnish personal bonds of Rs.1 lakh each with two local solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, they be released on bail. Thereafter, the petitioners have applied for deposit instead of recognizance in terms of Section 445 ofthe Code, same has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 23-12-2010 which was challenged before the revisional Court and same was also dismissed by the revisional Court vide the order impugned. Both the Courts below have held that inaccordance with Section 445 ofthe Code only deposit is permitted instead of persbnal bond and not ofsurety bond. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are residents of China country, they are not in a position to procure and produce solvent sureties from this country and, therefore, instead of recognizance they are ready to deposit money of bail bonds, but both the Courts below have illegally interpreted the provisions of Section 445 of the Code and have dismissed the petitions. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and subiyiits that the trial Court has exercised its discretion for releasing the petitioners in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court and has chosen to put condition of personal bail bonds with two sureties. 6. The Supreme Court has passed following order relating to bail of the petitioners: - "Petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court in its discretion. The trial court, however, shall apart from the other conditions, impose the condition directing the petitioners to surrender their respective passports and upon such surrender the passports shall remain with the trial court till the disposal ofthe cases. We, however, record the underi:aking given by the Consulate General of the People's Republic of China at Kolkata, the operative portion of which reads as under: "The Consulate of the People's Republic of China in Kolkata, hereby undertakes and assures ^I -A;-^ -.'••^•.'•^-^ VS^?:'S ^•^^- yeff^- to the Hon'ble High Court that we will ensure the availability of the above-mentioned Cliinese citizens for the duration of the trial and wfll also ensure that they will co-operate with invegtigating agencies in India."" 7. The Supreme Court has directed release of the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court in its discretion. In compliance of the order of the Supreme Court, the trial Court has exercised its discretion and has imposed condition of solvent sureties for releasing the petitioners and giving them into the custody of persons of the society. It is not obligatory that surety must be having sufficient property. Normal procedure for releasing-a-fierson on bail from the custody is to release the person on furnishing personal bond and solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Provisions ur.!-ier Section 445 of the Code is an exception to fhe normal procedure. 8. Virtually, by praying for stich relief, the petitioners have claimed to be tried by a particular procedure instead of normal procedure. While considering the question of trial of accused by a particular procedyre or court, this Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No.98/2011 (V. Narayanasamy v. Shri Ajay Chandrakar and another) videorder dated 23-3-2011, by applying the dictum of the Supreme Court in the matters of Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh and Union of India v. Sukumar Pyne , has held as follows: - "The accused has no vested right to be tried by a particular Court or by a particular procedure except in so far as there is any constitutional objection by way of ^ discrimination or the violation of any other fundamental right is involved." 9. In the present case, while exercising discretion for releasing the petitioners on bail and refusing deposit instead of recognizance, the Courts below have not committed any illegality. The accused has no vested right to be tried by a particular Court or by a particular procedure. 10.For thelforegoing reasons, 1 do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, in limine. 11. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge 1AIR 1953 SC 394 2AIR1966SC1206 ^fc. ^-~1 ^