2018 (11) TMI 1789 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Statutory Bail - modification of condition of bail - Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. - misappropriation of funds by inducing the defacto complainant on part with money - HELD THAT - The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2018. Since the respondent did not filed the charge sheet, the Court below enlarged the petitioner on statutory bail, as per the procedure contemplated under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. While granting bail, the learned Magistrate imposed condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of ₹ 5 crores to the credit of Crime No. 453 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police - the only condition can be imposed, while granting anticipatory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is that the accused persons shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. Apart from that no other requirement is necessary for grant of statutory bail as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. In the case on hand, admittedly, the charge sheet has not been filed by the respondent police. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. When it being so, the right to be released under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right and such a right cannot be extinguished by imposition of onerous conditions. The condition imposed that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of ₹ 5 crores to the credit of Crime No. 453 of 2017, is set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Modification of conditions for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking modification of the condition imposed in Crl. M.P. No. 4580 of 2018, which required depositing a sum of ?5 crores to the credit of a specific crime number. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner induced a transfer of ?45 crores and misappropriated funds, leading to the imposition of stringent bail conditions.

2. The petitioner argued that while granted statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., no additional conditions beyond furnishing bail should be imposed. The defense emphasized that the right to statutory bail is indefeasible and cannot be extinguished by onerous conditions, citing relevant legal provisions and precedents.

3. The court examined the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., which allow for detention up to 90 days in certain cases without filing a charge sheet. The court noted that the only condition for granting statutory bail under this section is furnishing bail, and no other requirements should be imposed.

4. Relying on legal precedents such as Baskar and Others v. State and Others and K.S.J. Kumar v. State, the court emphasized that the purpose of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is to prevent unnecessary detention and compel the prosecution to file a charge sheet within the prescribed period. The court reiterated that the right to statutory bail must be upheld without additional conditions beyond providing adequate sureties.

5. Considering that the charge sheet had not been filed by the respondent police, the court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to be released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court set aside the condition requiring the deposit of ?5 crores and allowed the petition for modification while maintaining other conditions intact.