Kuldip Singh, Judge
1. This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MMO Nos. 63, 64 and 65 of 2012 filed by petitioner Sanjeev Aery u/s 440 Cr.P.C. for reduction of amount of bonds in cases arising out of FIR Nos.186/2011, 163/2011, registered at Police Station, Dehra and FIR No. 216 of 2011, registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi. In Cr.MMO No. 63 of 2012, it has been stated that prosecution case is that petitioner along with other accused Kuldip Kumar, Ranjit Singh, Ramesh Chand and Joginder Pal collected about Rs. 80 lakhs from 36 unemployed boys on the pretext of providing them employment in Assam Rifles and Health Department. The money was allegedly handed over to the petitioner, who further handed over the same to accused Archana Singha. The accused conspired with each other and cheated unemployed boys. As such FIR No. 186/2011 was registered at Police Station, Dehra, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.
2. In Cr.MMO No. 64 of 2011,it has been stated that prosecution case is that petitioner along with other accused Kuldip Kumar, Ranjit Singh, Ramesh Chand and Joginder Pal collected about Rs. 80 lakhs from 36 unemployed boys on the pretext of providing them jobs in Assam Rifles and Health Department. The money was allegedly handed over to the petitioner, who further handed over the same to accused Archana Singha. The accused conspired with each other and cheated unemployed boys. As such FIR No. 163/2011 was registered at Police Station, Dehra, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.
3. In Cr.MMO No. 65/2012, it has been stated that petitioner along with other accused Kuldip Kumar, Ranjit Singh, Ramesh Chand and Joginder Pal collected an amount of Rs. 80 lakhs from 36 unemployed boys on the pretext of providing them jobs in Assam Rifles and Health Department. The money so collected was handed over to petitioner, who further handed over the same to accused Archana Singha. The accused conspired with each other and cheated unemployed boys. On this, FIR No. 216/2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC was registered at Police Station,Dehra, but the learned Assistant Advocate General has stated that FIR No. 216/2011 has been registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi and not at Police Station, Dehra.
4. In all the three petitions, it has been stated that petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on 23.04.2012 by learned trial Magistrate on account of his ailment. The learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties at least one of which must be local in the like amount in each case. The petitioner could not furnish personal and surety bonds as directed by learned Magistrate and he is still in judicial custody. The petitioner requested the learned Magistrate to reduce the bond amount. It has been stated that the bond amount is excessive. The submission has been made for reduction of the bond amount.
5. Heard. The petitioner is an accused in three FI Rs. as per averments made in the petitions. He has been ordered to be released on bail by learned Magistrate on health ground in all the three cases on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties of like amount, one of them to be local in each case. The petitioner has stated that the collective bond amount is excessive and has submitted for reduction of the bond amount.
6. The primary purpose of the bail bond is to ensure the presence of accused during trial. It has been contended that bond amount is excessive, but ''excessive'' is a relevant term. The bond should be in consonance with the nature of offence, probability of conviction, roots of the accused in the society, financial condition, reputation, character, criminal record of the accused. The petitioner, no doubt, in the petitions has stated that collective bond amount is excessive, but he has nowhere stated that he still is not in a position to furnish the requisite bonds being excessive. There is no averment in the petitions that no surety is ready to furnish bail bonds as directed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner is facing three cases, therefore, the learned Magistrate has asked the petitioner to furnish bonds separately in each case. The petitioner is resident of Ferozpur, Punjab. In the opinion of the Magistrate to ensure the presence of the petitioner in the trial, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to furnish the requisite bonds. The allegations against petitioner are serious. The petitioner in connivance with other accused has defrauded several youths in three different cases on the pretext of providing them jobs and collected Rs. 80 lakh in each case through other accused and handed over the same to Archana Singha. The innocent youths have been thus duped about Rs. 2 crore 40 lakhs in three cases. The petitioner has not projected the case that despite his best efforts he is still not in a position to furnish bonds as directed by learned Magistrate being excessive. Hence, all the petitions are rejected.
