9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 61 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of Bail - bail was granted on the condition of deposit 35% of the amount imposed as fine by the learned Magistrate - entire conspiracy to grab the agricultural land of father of applicant against which a civil suit is also pending - HELD THAT - Identical issue decided in the case of Yatendra Bharadwaj 2018 (5) TMI 2027 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where it was held that The benefit of the said order may be extended to the applicant also - order passed by learned Sessions Judge Agra are hereby modified to the extent that the applicant shall deposit only 10% of the amount of fine of ₹ 75,00,000/- imposed by the appellate Court as a pre-condition for being released on bail and on furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 20,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned till the disposal of the appeal - application allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing orders related to bail conditions. 2. Imposition of fine and compensation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Reasonableness and legality of bail conditions imposed by the appellate court. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing orders related to bail conditions: The applicant sought to quash the orders dated 24.2.2020 and 25.9.2020 by the Sessions Judge, Agra, which required the applicant to deposit 35% of the ?75,00,000 fine imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, as a condition for bail. The applicant argued that he was financially incapable of meeting this requirement and that the fine was unreasonably high. 2. Imposition of fine and compensation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The case involved a dishonored cheque of ?70,00,000 issued by the applicant, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of ?75,00,000, with ?70,00,000 directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. The applicant's appeal against this conviction was granted bail with the condition to deposit 1/4th of the fine amount, which he challenged as being onerous. 3. Reasonableness and legality of bail conditions imposed by the appellate court: The court considered previous judgments, including Yatendra Bharadwaj Vs. State of UP, where similar conditions were imposed and challenged. The court examined provisions of Section 357 and Section 389 CrPC, emphasizing that while courts can impose conditions for bail, these should not be unreasonable or onerous. The court referenced several Supreme Court cases, including Stanny Felix Pinto Vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, and Dilip S. Dhanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Company Limited and another, to underline that the amount of compensation and bail conditions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. The court found the condition to deposit 1/4th of the fine amount as onerous and harsh, modifying it to only 10% of the fine amount, thereby making it more reasonable and just. Conclusion: The application under Section 482 CrPC was partly allowed. The court modified the orders dated 24.2.2020 and 25.9.2020 to require the applicant to deposit only 10% of the ?75,00,000 fine as a pre-condition for bail, along with a personal bond of ?20,000 and two sureties of the like amount, until the disposal of the appeal. This modification aimed to balance the applicant's financial incapacity with the need to ensure compliance with legal procedures.
|
