2019 (3) TMI 1898 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Regular Bail - requirement to deposit money as a condition for releasing the accused on bail - permission to deposit money in lieu of executing bond and with one/two sureties in the like amount - HELD THAT - In the present case, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram while granting regular bail to the petitioner has asked him to furnish bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to deposit of an amount of ₹ 5 lacs. The petitioner is a woman, and is aggrieved by the condition to deposit an amount of ₹ 5 lacs being financially weak and is not in a condition to deposit huge amount as there is also a matrimonial dispute with her husband and divorce petition is also pending. The condition to deposit such amount appears to be unreasonable and arbitrary. Moreover, there is no provision under the Cr.P.C. to deposit the amount in cash as a condition precedent for grant of bail. However, the Court may permit the person to deposit money in lieu of executing bond and with one/two sureties in the like amount. Granting or declining the bail depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, which is within the exclusive discretion of Court of law or authority. However, such direction is to be exercised by the Court by considering facts and circumstances of the case. Once the Court comes to the conclusion on facts and circumstances of the case that a person is entitled to be released on bail, then no such condition other than as provided in Section 437 (3) or 438 (2) Cr.P.C. can be imposed. Imposition of such unreasonable condition is not only beyond the purview of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. but also beyond the powers of the Court. The condition to deposit an amount of ₹ 5 lacs in cash, imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide order dated 14.05.2018 while granting bail to the petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside - the present petition is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Legality and reasonableness of the condition to deposit ?5 lacs in cash for bail.
2. Authority of the court to impose such a condition under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
3. Applicability of precedents set by higher courts regarding onerous and unreasonable bail conditions.

Detailed Analysis

Legality and Reasonableness of the Condition to Deposit ?5 Lacs in Cash for Bail
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the condition of depositing ?5 lacs in cash, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, while granting bail. The petitioner argued that this condition was illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The petitioner, being a woman with no criminal background and facing financial constraints, found it difficult to arrange the said amount. The court acknowledged that such a condition could cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, effectively denying her the bail granted.

Authority of the Court to Impose Such a Condition under the Provisions of the Cr.P.C.
The court examined the provisions under Sections 437, 438, 440, 441, and 445 of the Cr.P.C. Section 437(3) and 438(2) Cr.P.C. allow the imposition of conditions to ensure the accused's availability during investigation and trial, and to prevent interference with the course of justice. However, Section 440 Cr.P.C. mandates that the amount of every bond should not be excessive. Section 441 Cr.P.C. requires the execution of a bond for a sum of money deemed sufficient by the court, but it does not mandate cash deposits. Section 445 Cr.P.C. permits the deposit of money or government promissory notes in lieu of executing a bond, only if the accused cannot secure sureties.

Applicability of Precedents Set by Higher Courts Regarding Onerous and Unreasonable Bail Conditions
The court referred to several precedents, including Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi, Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and Sumit Mehta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that imposing excessively onerous and unreasonable conditions for bail amounts to denial of bail itself. The Supreme Court in these cases emphasized that conditions for bail should ensure the accused's presence and non-interference with the investigation, without being excessively burdensome.

In Sandeep Jain’s case, the Supreme Court found a condition to deposit ?2 lacs apart from furnishing a bond of ?50,000/- with two sureties as unreasonable. Similarly, in Sreenivasulu Reddy’s case, the court held that the imposition of a condition to deposit ?50,000/- for anticipatory bail was not justified. The court in Sumit Mehta’s case reiterated that conditions should not defeat the purpose of granting bail and must be reasonable and effective in a pragmatic sense.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the condition to deposit ?5 lacs in cash imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, was unreasonable and arbitrary. The court stated that such a condition was beyond the purview of the Cr.P.C. and the powers of the court. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed, and the condition to deposit ?5 lacs in cash was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon executing a bond in the sum of ?25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate.