2002 (8) TMI 873 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of imposing financial conditions for bail.
2. Judicial discretion in imposing bail conditions.
3. Conflict in judicial decisions regarding bail conditions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Imposing Financial Conditions for Bail:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the order dated 10.10.2001, which required him to deposit the amount subject to the FIR as a condition for bail. The petitioner argued that this condition amounted to "buying bail" and was against public policy and the rule of law. The court held that imposing such financial conditions as a prerequisite for bail is not permissible. The purpose of bail conditions is to ensure the accused's presence during the trial and to prevent the commission of similar offenses, not to recover the alleged amount involved in the offense. The Supreme Court in M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001) held that conditions for bail must be reasonable and should not be aimed at recovering the alleged amount.

2. Judicial Discretion in Imposing Bail Conditions:
The court examined the judicial discretion exercised in imposing bail conditions. It emphasized that conditions must be reasonable, just, and not arbitrary. The conditions should ensure the accused's attendance in court, prevent the commission of similar offenses, and protect the interests of justice. The court referred to Section 437(3) and Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., which outline the permissible conditions for bail. The court reiterated that the object of imposing conditions should not be to recover the alleged amount but to ensure the accused does not misuse the liberty granted by bail.

3. Conflict in Judicial Decisions Regarding Bail Conditions:
The court addressed the conflict in views among different judgments. In Mrs. Rajeshwari Verma's case, the condition of depositing money for bail was deemed buying freedom and against public policy. In Sarkar Saheb's case, the condition of depositing the amount equivalent to the istridhan was considered reasonable. In Vansh Bahadur Singh's case, the accused's voluntary offer to deposit the amount led to interim bail, but the failure to honor the undertaking resulted in the rejection of bail. The court clarified that each case must be considered on its facts, and the discretion must be exercised judicially. The court concluded that the decision in Rajeshwari Verma's case aligns with the principles laid down in M. Sreenivasulu Reddy's case, emphasizing that conditions should not be unduly harsh or make bail illusory.

Conclusion:
The court held that imposing financial conditions as a prerequisite for bail is not permissible. Conditions must be reasonable and aimed at ensuring the accused's presence during the trial and preventing the commission of similar offenses. The conflict in judicial decisions was resolved by emphasizing the need for judicial discretion and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The case was referred back to the learned Single Judge for disposal in accordance with the law.