The Bombay High Court while staying chapter proceedings against businessman Shyamsundar Agarwal sought justification from the police for telling the businessman to sign a bond of Rs 20 lakh.
A division bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh on Tuesday stayed the chapter proceedings while hearing a plea by Agarwal. Earlier this month, the police said that they will not arrest Agarwal till August 22.
Chapter proceedings are preventive actions taken by the police if they fear that a particular person is likely to create trouble and disrupt the peace in society.
Agarwal had earlier alleged that two policemen were extorting money from him at the behest of former Mumbai commissioner Param Bir Singh.
Under the chapter proceedings, the police issued a notice to the concerned person and s/he is asked to sign a bond of good behaviour to sign a bond of good behaviour. Along with signing the bond, an amount is fixed as surety which the concerned person is bound to pay.
Agarwal's advocates Anil Singh and Sandesh Patil showed the court the notice served by the police and pointed out that the bond amount was Rs 20 lakh.
The Bombay High Court was surprised at the bond amount and remarked that such a quantum does not exist for even some serious offences.
The judges asked additional public prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik under which power the police had asked for a bond of Rs 20 lakh. They remarked that even under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), such a bond was not asked to be executed.
Singh submitted that the cases quoted for chapter proceedings arose from civil disputes and the same are given colour of criminal cases. He said that these cases are registered under the "The cases against Agarwal are under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, Rent Act, etc.
Yagnik sought time to take instructions.
The bench then stayed the chapter proceedings and said, “You will have to justify the quantum of bond. Otherwise, take remedial measures and inform us on the next date. You can withdraw this and issue a fresh notice.”
