2009 (3) TMI 1078 - SC - Indian Laws

Imposing condition for depositing huge amount in fixed deposit for grant of anticipatory bail - Inability of the petitioner to comply with the condition - Within or outside the purview of Section 438 of the CrPC - Anticipatory bail u/s-438 CrPC - Nature and gravity of accusation - Onerous and unreasonable - receipt of ₹ 32.5 lakhs as advance towards sale consideration of the property was alleged to be on misrepresentation - HELD THAT - It is disclosed from the records that the said property is already mortgaged during the year 2004 with the Punjab National Bank and that in fact parties have already obtained an order of attachment. Even the documents with regard to the ownership of the property are lying with another financial institution from whom the appellants have received consideration. There appears to be hypothecation in respect of the said property which was entered into with the private financer. It is alleged that the appellants while entering into the said agreement with the complainant never brought to his notice about the mortgage of the property. The aforesaid allegations are serious but the same are required to be considered by the court in accordance with and in the light of correct position of law. This Court in Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi 2002 (1) TMI 1326 - SUPREME COURT , held was held that, the imposition of condition to deposit the sum of ₹ 15 lacks in the form of FDR in the Trial Court is an unreasonable condition and, therefore, we set aside the said condition as a condition precedent for granting anticipatory bail to the accused/appellant. It appears that, High Court passed the impugned order with the intention of protecting the interest of the complainant in the matter. In our considered opinion, the approach of the High Court was incorrect as under the impugned order a very unreasonable and onerous condition has been laid down by the Court as a condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remit back the matter to the High Court to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants afresh in accordance with law taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of the offence alleged and analysing the prayer of the appellants whether to grant or not to grant the prayer for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail with onerous conditions.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against a part of the direction in a High Court order granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint alleged fraudulent transfer of property and cheating by the appellants. The High Court imposed conditions for anticipatory bail, requiring the appellants to deposit a significant amount and execute a personal bond. The appellants challenged these conditions as unreasonable and onerous, affecting their right to bail. The Supreme Court considered the submissions and records, noting the serious allegations of misrepresentation and concealment by the appellants. However, the Court found the conditions imposed by the High Court to be unreasonable and onerous, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of justice and the rights of the accused.

The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments highlighting the need for reasonableness in conditions for anticipatory bail. It cited cases where conditions like depositing large sums were deemed unreasonable and improper. The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to consider all facts and legal principles while granting anticipatory bail. It directed the High Court to reconsider the appellants' bail application, taking into account the gravity of the alleged offenses and providing reasons for its decision. The Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the onerous conditions imposed for anticipatory bail and directing the High Court to reexamine the bail application considering all relevant factors and legal principles. The Court stressed the importance of balancing the interests of justice and the rights of the accused in such matters, ensuring a fair and just decision within a reasonable timeframe.