9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1851 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of Statutory Bail - investigation is not completed and Final Report is not filed within the statutory period - Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - imposition of condition for cash security at the time of granting Statutory Bail - indefeasible right accruing in favour of the accused for being released on bail - extension of detention period - HELD THAT - A conspectus of the judgment in the cases of UDAY MOHANLAL ACHARYA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2001 (3) TMI 1032 - SUPREME COURT , RAJNIKANT JIVANLAL PATEL VERSUS NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU 1989 (6) TMI 227 - SUPREME COURT would clearly show that on the expiry of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused person for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused person is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate. The right of an accused person to be released on bail after the expiry of the maximum period of detention provided u/s. 167 can be denied only when an accused person does not furnish bail. If an accused person is ready to offer bail, once the stipulated period for the investigation had been completed, then the Magistrate no longer has the authority to extend the period of detention beyond 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be and he has no option except to release the accused on bail. Even though the petitioner was granted bail, by considering the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, the same was not able to be complied with by the petitioner and as a result of the same the petitioner was not able to come out on bail. The same will not stand in the way of the petitioner to file a fresh bail petition u/s. 167 (2) of Cr.P.C, once the statutory period expires and no final report is filed by the respondent police. The earlier order has worked itself out and the petitioner is now armed with a statutory right to seek bail as a matter of right. The accused person should be released on bail if she is prepared to and does furnish the bail which has been termed by judicial pronouncements to be compulsive bail and such bail would be deemed to be a bail under chapter XXXIII. Therefore, the petitioner has every right to invoke the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and seek for Statutory Bail independently. This Court concurs with the view expressed by this Court in its judgment in P.L. Jayaraj Vs. State 2018 (11) TMI 1789 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where in this Court has categorically held that the indefeasible right given u/s. 167(2) cannot be extinguished by imposing any onerous conditions. In this case even though the petitioner was granted bail, she was not able to come out on bail since she was not able to comply with the condition directing her to make a cash deposit of ₹ 20 lakhs. If the very same condition of cash security is to be imposed on the petitioner while considering the Statutory Bail, it will indirectly defeat the indefeasible right of the petitioner and will prevent the petitioner from coming out on bail. The Court below failed to appreciate this fundamental aspect while dismissing the bail petition filed by the petitioner. It is seen from records that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Coimbatore, and all the properties belonging to the petitioner and her family is in and around Coimbatore and this Court is convinced that the petitioner cannot abscond, if the bail is granted by imposing reasonable conditions. The petitioner is entitled to be released on Statutory Bail and the petitioner is also prepared to furnish bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner while imposing certain conditions.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner can independently invoke the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and seek Statutory Bail despite being unable to comply with previously imposed bail conditions. 2. Whether any condition for cash security can be imposed at the time of granting Statutory Bail to the extent that it indirectly denies the statutory right given to the accused person. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Invocation of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. for Statutory Bail The petitioner, arrested on 02.11.2018 for offenses under Sections 120(B), 406, 420 IPC, and Section 5 of the TNPID Act, sought bail after more than 104 days of incarceration. The initial bail was granted with a condition to deposit ?20 lakhs, which the petitioner could not fulfill, leading to continued detention. The petitioner then filed for Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. after the statutory period expired without the filing of a Final Report. The Court held that even though the petitioner was initially granted bail with conditions, the inability to comply with these conditions does not preclude the petitioner from seeking Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) once the statutory period has expired without the filing of a Final Report. The Court emphasized that the earlier bail order had "worked itself out" and the petitioner now had a statutory right to seek bail. The Court cited multiple judgments, including Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra and Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel v. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau, to support the view that an accused has an indefeasible right to be released on bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period. Issue 2: Imposition of Cash Security Condition The Court examined whether imposing a cash security condition of ?20 lakhs, which the petitioner could not meet, effectively denied the statutory right to bail. The Court referenced its own judgment in P.L. Jayaraj v. State, asserting that the indefeasible right under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be nullified by imposing onerous conditions. The Court noted that bail conditions should ensure the accused's appearance and not be punitive or impossible to fulfill. The Court concluded that imposing the same cash security condition while considering Statutory Bail would indirectly defeat the petitioner's statutory right. The Court found that the petitioner, being a permanent resident of Coimbatore with properties in the area, was unlikely to abscond. Therefore, the Court decided to grant bail with more reasonable conditions. Conclusion The Court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a bond of ?10,000 with two sureties, with additional conditions to report to the police daily, attend court hearings, not tamper with evidence, and not abscond. The Court emphasized that the statutory right to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. should not be undermined by imposing conditions that are impossible to meet.
|
