1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1516 OF 2010 Virendra Ambikaprasad Giri ...Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- Mr.Subhash Jha i/b. M/s. Law Global for Applicant Mr.J.P. Kharge -APP for State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. The Applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court 5.3.2010. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had imposed a condition that the Applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs 5,00,000/- as a condition precedent for grant of bail. 2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that such a condition could not be imposed by the Sessions Court as a precondition for grant of bail. 2 3. He invited my attention to the provisions of section 440 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted that this Court can set aside the said condition. He also relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi reported in (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 66 and he also relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sheikh Ayub vs. State of M.P. reported in (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 457 4. I have perused the impugned order. It is a well settled position in law that while granting bail, the trial court or the Court of Sessions should not imposed conditions which are impossible to perform since it amounts to denial of bail. The Apex Court in the case of Moti Ram and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1978 (SC)1594 has observed as under: “If sureties are obligatory even for 3 juveniles, females and sickly accused while they can be dispense with, after being found guilty, if during trial when the presence to instruct lawyers is more necessary, an accused must buy released only with sureties while at the appellate level, suretyship is expendable, there is unreasonable restriction on personal liberty with discrimination writ on the provisions. The hornet's nest of Part III need not be provoked if we read 'bail' to mean that it popularly does, and lexically and in American Jurisprudence is stated to mean, viz., a generic expression used to describe judicial release from custodia juris. Bearing in mind, the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice, individual freedom and indigent's rights, we hold that bail 4 covers both-release on one's own bond, with or without sureties. When sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variable.” This view is, therefore, reiterated in the catena of judgments of the Apex Court. In the case of Sandeep Jain(supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: “We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of R.2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable 5 to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies provided by law. Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even 6 come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police.” In the case of Sheikh Ayub (supra) also the Apex Court has observed as under: “By the impugned order the appellant was granted bail and directed to deposit Rs.2,50,000 which is alleged to be the amount misappropriated by the appellant. There was also condition for furnishing surety bond for Rs.50,000. In the circumstances of the case, direction to deposit Rs.2,50,000 was not warranted, as part of the conditions for granting bail.” 5. In the present case, the Applicant has been directed to deposit initially Rs.2,00,000/- in the concerned ESI Fund Account with State Bank of India, 7 Bhandup and, thereafter, deposit Rs.3,00,000/- in the said fund account within two months from the date of his release on bail. 6. The Applicant had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- and has now challenged this order. In my view, the Additional Sessions Court ought not to have imposed this onerous condition while granting bail to the Applicant. 7. As a result, the said condition directing the Applicant to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- as one of the conditions of bail is deleted. The Applicant may now report to the concerned police station twice in a month instead of reporting every Wednesday. 8. Application is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)