2013 (9) TMI 1265 - 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 - HELD THAT - While exercising power under Section 438 of the Code the Court is under obligation to maintain balance between the individual s right to personal freedom and the right of Police investigation. While granting relief under Section 438(1) appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation but no condition can be imposed which gives reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial. So the discretion of the Court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint. Thus fixed deposit of 1, 00, 00, 000/- for a period of six months in the name of the complainant and to keep the FDR with the investigating officer as a condition for granting anticipatory bail is evidently onerous and unreasonable. Therefore it was suggested that power to impose a condition of this nature is totally excluded even in cases of cheating electricity pilferage white-collar crimes or chit fund scams etc. The words any condition used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a Court of law to impose any condition whatsoever. Any condition- interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. Thus Court held that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed. In the cas of Amarjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2002 (1) TMI 1326 - SUPREME COURT it 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. In the result the direction relating to deposit of FDR in the name of the complainant was set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail with the condition of depositing a fixed amount in a fixed deposit account.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the appellant in a case involving offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000 in a fixed deposit in the complainant's name as a condition for bail. The appellant challenged this condition, arguing that it was untenable in law and outside the purview of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant contended that such a condition would make the grant of anticipatory bail impossible and would result in a denial of liberty, contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution. The intervener supported the High Court's decision, stating that the condition was justified given the dispute between the parties. The respondent-State also supported the condition, stating that it was not onerous considering the circumstances.

The Supreme Court considered whether the condition of depositing Rs. 1,00,00,000 in a fixed deposit for anticipatory bail was sustainable in law and within the scope of Section 438 of the Code. Referring to Section 438, the Court emphasized that bail should not be used to satisfy personal vendettas and that the grant of bail depends on the merits of each case. The Court cited the decision in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, which highlighted the importance of not imposing unnecessary restrictions on anticipatory bail. The Court also referred to previous judgments where conditions requiring the deposit of large sums of money were deemed unreasonable for granting bail.

The Court stressed the need to balance an individual's right to personal freedom with the police's right to investigate. It noted that conditions imposed for anticipatory bail should be related to the fairness of the investigation and trial. The Court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to all fundamental rights, including the right to liberty under Article 21. The Court clarified that while imposing conditions for anticipatory bail, the nature of the accusation, the applicant's antecedents, and the possibility of fleeing from justice must be considered.

Ultimately, the Court found the condition of depositing Rs. 1,00,00,000 in a fixed deposit to be onerous and unreasonable. While retaining the grant of anticipatory bail, the Court set aside the direction related to the deposit and imposed alternative conditions, such as making the appellant available for interrogation, refraining from influencing witnesses, furnishing address details, and obtaining court permission before leaving India. The appeal was disposed of with these revised conditions.