((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2522 OF 2008 Tejas Kirti Kumar Salot & anr. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra Respondent A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/by S.R.Mithare for applicants. Sanjay S. Parab i/by M.V.Kini & Co. for applicants. Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 07th May 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. I have also heard learned counsel for the original complainant and learned APP for the State. The applicants applied for bail in connection with offence registered punishable under sections 255, 259, 260, 265, 420, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. By order dated 19th April 2008, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge granted bail to the applicants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The ((-2-)) learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed the applicants to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.75.00 lakhs within a period of one month from the date of said order. Thereafter an application was made on behalf of the applicants seeking modification of the order granting bail. The prayer made by the applicants was for grant of permission to deposit a cash amount up to Rs.15.00 lakhs instead of bank guarantee of Rs.75.00 lakhs. The said application for modification was rejected by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and, therefore, the applicants have filed present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing that part of the order granting bail by which the applicants were directed to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.75.00 lakhs. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants has made detailed submissions. His submission is that while granting bail the Court could not have imposed a condition to furnish a bank guarantee of such high amount. His submission was that such a condition could not have been imposed in law by the learned Judge while granting the bail in favour of the ((-3-)) applicants. He pointed out that the applicants have subsequently deposited a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs with the Court of learned magistrate. The learned counsel for the second respondent (original complainant) opposed the petition. He submitted that the Court could have always imposed a condition of deposit of a substantial amount as a condition for grant of bail. He invited my attention to paragraphs 5 to 7 of the affidavit filed by the concerned investigating officer. He has also invited my attention to the affidavit filed by the regional manager of the complainant. He submitted that the fraud involved in the case is to the tune of Rs.1.50 crores. He submitted that the applicants have themselves offered to furnish the bank guarantee. He submitted that for securing the claim of the complainant, the said condition ought to have been imposed. 3. Before dealing with the averments made by the counsel for the parties it will be necessary to refer to the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the parties. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sureshchandra Ramanlal Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2008-ALL MR ((-4-)) [Cri]-2294 [S.C.]). This was a case where an officer of the bank was charged with the offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 439, 471, 473(a) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court was dealing with an application for anticipatory bail made by the appellant before it. The Apex Court imposed a condition of deposit of a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Keshab Narayan Banerjee and another vs. The State of Bihar (AIR-1985-SC-1666) in which the Apex Court has observed thus :- "2. Heard counsel for the parties. The condition imposed by the High Court for enlarging Keshab Narayan Banerjee, appellant No.1 on bail, namely, that he should furnish security for rupees one lakh in cash or in fixed deposit of any nationalised bank in Bihar with two sureties residing in the State of Bihar each for a like amount appears to be excessively onerous. In the circumstances of this case, it virtually amounts to denial of bail itself. It is, therefore, ordered that appellant no.1 shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. ... ..." Lastly my attention was invited to the judgement of Apex Court in the case of ((-5-)) M.Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs. State of T.N. ([2002]10-SCC-653). In this case the Apex Court upheld the condition imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail to the accused subject to depositing a large amount. 4. At the outset it must be noted that on plain reading of the operative part of order dated 19th April 2008 the requirement of the applicants’ furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.75.00 lakhs is not incorporated as a condition for grant of bail. Clause (2) of the said order directs that the applicants shall be released on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. Clause (4) directs the attendance of the applicants and clause (5) directs the applicants to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.75.00 lakhs. Though the parties have proceeded on the footing that the direction of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.75.00 lakhs is a condition for grant of bail, on plain reading of the order, that is not so and after granting the bail on certain conditions the Sessions Court issued the direction regarding furnishing bank guarantee. ((-6-)) 5. While exercising power of granting bail in case of non bailable offences, the Courts have power to impose appropriate conditions while granting the bail. However, the conditions should not so onerous so as to prevent the person from availing of the bail. It is impossible to accede to the submission that while considering the prayer for bail in a non bailable offence the Court is powerless to impose suitable conditions. The condition imposed cannot be onerous so as to defeat the very order of grant of bail. In this context the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties will have to be appreciated. It is true that the offence alleged against the applicants are of serious nature. The allegation against the applicants is that they obtained a cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.1.5 crores from the complainant by submitting forged documents. Looking to the allegations, this was a case where a suitable condition could have been always imposed by the Sessions Court while enlarging the applicants on bail. Assuming that the direction to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.75.00 lakhs is a condition for grant of bail, such a condition ((-7-)) is obviously very onerous condition. In the facts of the case, if such a condition is imposed, it would certainly prevent the applicants from availing the facility of bail as even for obtaining the bank guarantee of Rs.75.00 lakhs, the applicants will have to deposit the amount with the concerned bank. 6. As pointed out earlier, by filing the Miscellaneous Application No.864 of 2008, the applicants offered to deposit cash amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs instead of bank guarantee of Rs.75.00 lakhs. The said amount has been now admittedly deposited by the applicants with the Court of learned Magistrate. It will be necessary to refer to the averments made in this application and the grounds raised therein. In grounds (b) and (c) the applicants have averred that the applicants could not succeed in their efforts to secure bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.75.00 lakhs. The case made out is that no bank is willing to furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.75.00 lakhs and, therefore, the efforts of the applicants to secure bank guarantee have been failed. In ground (g) it is contended that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee ((-8-)) of Rs.75.00 lakhs is harsh. 7. In accordance with willingness shown before the Lower Court, the applicants have deposited a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs. Going by the averments made in this application, the applicants have expressed their inability to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.75.00 lakhs. It is not the case of the applicants made out in the application that they are unable to offer bank guarantee of any reasonable amount. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects, in my view, the interests of justice will be met if in addition to amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs deposited by the applicants with the Trial Court, the applicants are directed to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs (Rs.Fifteen lakhs only). Considering the pleadings of the applicants, such a condition of submitting a bank guarantee of Rs.15.00 lakhs by no stretch of imagination can be termed as an onerous condition. Sufficiently longer time can be granted to the applicants to furnish the bank guarantee. 8. Hence, I pass following order :- ((-9-)) (a) The impugned judgement and order dated 19th April 2009 passed by the Sessions court in Bail Application No.863 of 2008 is modified insofar as clause (5) thereof is concerned; (b) As a condition for grant of bail, apart from what is provided in clause (2) of the operative part of the said order, the applicants will deposit a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs (Rs.Fifteen lakhs only) and will furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs (Rs.Fifteen lakhs only); (c) As stated earlier, a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs is already deposited by the applicants. Time of eight weeks is granted to the applicants to furnish the bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs in favour of the Trial Court; (d) In the event the applicants fail to furnish the bank guarantee within the specified time, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail; (e) The sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs deposited in the Trial Court shall be invested in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank and the deposit ((-10-)) shall be renewed from time to time till conclusion of the trial. (A.S.OKA, J.)