IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 194 of 2009 Bablu Adhikari .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ……… Respondents February 8, 2010 Mr. Nand Gopal Singh, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondents no. 1 & 2. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the respondent no. 3. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) is directed against the order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 2736/2009, State v. Sukumar & Ors., whereby the application of respondent no. 3 Vashudev for depositing cash money instead of furnishing of two sureties was allowed. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 3 was granted bail in FIR No. 323/2009 u/s 302/201/120B/212 IPC, PS Rudrapur by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh vide order dated 4.9.2009 on the condition of furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two sureties of same amount i.e. Rs. 30,000/- each to the satisfaction of CJM, Udham Singh Nagar. Thereafter the respondent no. 3 moved an application through his counsel stating that he was in jail and was unable to arrange the sureties and, therefore, he requested that he may be allowed to deposit cash money equal to the value of surety bonds instead of furnishing of two sureties. His application was allowed vide order dated 30.9.2009 and he was directed to deposit the cash money equal to the value of surety bonds after having his thumb impression and photograph. Against the aforesaid order dated 30.9.2009, the complainant has preferred this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record. 4. When this revision was first listed for admission, this Court vide order dated 17.12.2009 called for the explanation of the Officer concerned as to how the accused/respondent no. 3 was released without complying with the orders of the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar passed in the bail application of the accused/respondent no. 3. The CJM, Udham Singh Nagar has furnished his explanation vide his letter dated 6.1.2010, wherein he has stated that he had passed the impugned order in good faith and as per the provisions of Section 445 CrPC. He has also stated that the respondent no. 3 Vashudev has also furnished the sureties lateron in the court in compliance of the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3 argued that since the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge has now been complied with and the respondent no. 3 has furnished the surety bonds in the court of concerned Magistrate and this fact has also been mentioned by the concerned CJM in his report dated 6.1.2010, therefore, this revision has been rendered infructuous and is liable to be dismissed as such. Learned Brief Holder for the State has also submitted that revision has been rendered infructuous as the order dated 4.9.2009 of the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar has been fully complied with. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, perusal of the explanation of the CJM, Udham 2 Singh Nagar and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view the revision is liable to be dismissed in limine. Even otherwise, this revision has been rendered infructuous as the respondent no. 3 has furnished the sureties in compliance of the order dated 4.9.2009 of the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is hereby dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 8.2.2010 PRABODH 3