15 January 2008
Supreme Court
Download

N.JOTHI Vs ADDL.DIRECTOR GEN.OF POLICE

Case number: Crl.A. No.-000105-000106 / 2008
Diary number: 37403 / 2007


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  105-106 of 2008

PETITIONER: N. JOTHI

RESPONDENT: ADDL.DIRECTOR GENL.OF POLICE & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/2008

BENCH: CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & R.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.105-106 OF 2008 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NOS.8205-8206 OF 2007)

               Leave granted. 2.              Heard both sides. 3.              The second respondent herein had originally filed a complaint and on the  basis of that complaint the police had registered a case against the appellant herein under  Sections 109, 409, 420 IPC and 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corrupt ion  Act, 1988.   4.              The appellant, a Member of the Bar and Member of Parliament had moved an  application for anticipatory bail.  Learned Single Judge, by order dated 3.12.2007,  was  pleased to grant anticipatory bail subject to the condition that  the appellant should depos it a  sum of Rs.10,27,504/- before the Principal Sessions Judge,Chennai within four weeks. 5.              The appellant submits that the condition  should not have been imposed as it   is not a case where the complainant has made   any claim against the appellant accused.   There is also

some confusion as to whether the learned counsel for the appellant volunteered to deposit  such amount or whether the said amount was specified at the instance of the State counsel  and counsel for Intervenor.  Be that as it may. The     appellant   is   a   sitting M.P. an d this  condition is unnecessary   to  ensure his presence.  So we delete the first condition impose d  by the High Court regarding deposit of the above mentioned sum by the appellant. As a  consequence, the second condition is also modified directing the appellant to execute a bond   for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for  a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Princip al  Sessions Judge, Chennai.  In other respects, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is   upheld.  The appeals are disposed of accordingly.