9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority concerned till the final investigation or till the offence is compounded under the provision subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah and the said order was further modified by order dated July 12, 2018 to the extent that the petitioners be enlarged on bail by furnishing personal recognition bond of Rs. 10 lakh each and on further condition to deposit of the evaded amount respectively. The petitioners were arrested on May 12, 2018 and are still in custody and they have not been able to be released on bail by furnishing bond with the conditions as imposed by the order dated July 12, 2018. Learned advocate for the petitioners has sought for relaxation of conditions of bail pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6269-6270 of 2018 dated September 12, 2018 whereby the petitioners were granted permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions, without prejudice to the liberty available to the petitioner(s) to take recourse to appropriate remedy before an appropriate forum. Mr. Sudipto Moitra, learned advocate for the petitioners has invited my attention to the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition that the accused should make a payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month after his release on bail was found by the Apex Court not to be justified. It is observed that while it is open to a Court to grant or refuse bail it was impermissible for it to assume that an offence has been committed even at the stage of grant of bail and to direct repayment of any amount is both onerous and unwarranted. In Amarjit Singh v. State ( NCT of Delhi) 2002(61) DRJ 67, after adverting to Sandeep Jain, the Supreme Court had recorded that ? We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the imposition of condition to deposit the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the form of an FDR in the Trial Court is an unreasonable condition. In M.R. Narayanan v. State 103(2003) DLT 434, applying the ratio in Sreenivasulu Reddy is was concluded that "conditions akin to deposit of money ought not to be imposed as a ground for grant of bail; that conditions/terms are imposed solely to ensure the presence of the accused at the time of trial. The only situation where money may be deposited in fact arises from the volition of the accused. This is where the required person by any Court to execute a bond instead elec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expiry of the prescribed period or even that the prescribed period has actually not expired and thus resist the grant of bail on the alleged ground of 'default'. The issuance of notice would avoid the possibility of an accused obtaining an order of bail under 'default' clause by either deliberately or inadvertently concealing certain facts and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It would, therefore, serve the ends sof justice if both sides are heard on a petition for grant of bail on account of the prosecution's ' default'. Similarly, when a report is submitted by the public prosecutor to the Designated Court for grant of extension under clause (bb), its notice should be issued to the accused before granting such an extension so that an accused may have an opportunity to oppose the extension on all legitimate and legal grounds available to him. It is true that neither clause(b) nor clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 TADA specifically provide for the issuance of such a notice but in our opinion the issuance of such a notice must be read into these provisions both in the interest of the accused and the prosecution as well as for doing complete justice between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the investigation associated therewith, any further investigation would continue to relate to the same arrest and hence the period envisaged in the proviso to Section 167(2) would remain unextendable." In the case of Union of India through C.B.I. v. Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav, reported in AIR 2014 SC 3036 my attention is prayed to the observation made in paragraph 21 of the decision which reads thus:- " Elaborating further, the Court held that if the charge sheet is filed subsequent to the availing of the indefeasible right by the accused then that right would not stand frustrated or extinguished and, therefore, if an accused is entitled to be released on bail by application of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C., makes the application before the Magistrate, but the Magistrate erroneously refuses the same and rejects the application and then the accused moves the higher forum and while the mater remains pending before the higher forum for consideration a charge sheet is filed, the so-called indefeasible right of the accused would not stand extinguished thereby, and on the other hand, the accused has to be released on bail. The Court further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
