Imposing a pre-condition to pay a sum of money for being released on bail is unreasonable: Bombay High Court

 on 05 05 2021 on 10 05 : 1 : 10.APPLN 70 21.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.70 OF 2021Shri Vijaykumar Deshraj Sethi .... ApplicantVersus1. Senior Police Inspector Malegaon Camp police station Malegaon2. State of Maharashtra &3. Vilas Asaram Chordia .... Respondents Mr. Rajat Vinod Dighe Advocate for the Applicant.Smt. A.A. Takalkar APP for the Respondent State. CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL J.DATE:05th MAY 2021 3 SCC 22 theHon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the conditions forthe grant of bail ought not be so strict as to be incapable ofcompliance thereby making the grant of bail illusory.16.In the case of M.D. Dhanapal Vs. Staterepresented by the Inspector of Police as reported in6SCC 743 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 6 hasobserved that it is well settled that bail cannot be madeconditional upon heavy deposits beyond the financial capacityof an Applicant for bail. . In this case the bail order was passed on 8.1.2020and the Applicant could not avail of it for more than a year.17.In another case of Dilip Singh Vs. State of MadhyaPradesh and another as reported in2 SCC 779 theWWW.LIVELAW.IN on 05 05 2021 on 10 05 : 7 : 10.APPLN 70 21.odtHon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 4 has held that aCriminal Court exercising jurisdiction to grantbail anticipatory bail is not expected to act as a recoveryagent to realise the dues of the complainant and that too without any trial.18.In this view of the matter the condition ofimposition of Rs.25 Lakhs at this stage cannot be sustained.Learned Counsel for the Applicant stated that the Applicant isready and willing to furnish local solvent sureties. Therefore the following order is passed:ORDER(i) The operative part of the order dated 8.1.2021 passed bythe Additional Sessions Judge 3 Malegaon in CriminalBail Application No.12 2020 is set aside. Instead theApplicant shall be released on bail on followingconditions.(ii) The Applicant is directed to be released on bail inconnection with C.R.No.113 2019 registered withWWW.LIVELAW.IN on 05 05 2021 on 10 05 : 8 : 10.APPLN 70 21.odtMalegaon Camp Police Station District Nashik on hisfurnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.50 000 with one or two local solventsureties in the like amount.(iii) The Applicant shall deposit his passport if any with theinvestigating officer before being released on bail.(iv) The Applicant shall furnish his residential address andcontact number before being released on bail.(v) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police stationon first Monday of every month to mark his presencebefore the concerned police station till framing of thecharges.(vi) The Applicant shall attend the trial Court on every singledate except when prevented by a reasonable cause.(vii) The Application is disposed of accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL J.)Deshmane (PS)WWW.LIVELAW.IN 

Summary: In order for an individual to avail a release on bail, imposition of payment of a certain sum as a pre-condition is unreasonable. A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal while adjudicating the matter in Vijaykumar Deshraj Sethi v. Senior Police Inspector, Malegaon Camp police station, Malegaon and others; [CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 70 OF 2021], modified a bail order passed by a Malegaon session judge. An FIR was lodged by the respondent wherein he stated that he was engaged in the medical profession and he wanted to purchase an MRI machine. The applicant told him that he was in a position to import an MRI machine which cost about one crore. The respondent entered into an agreement with the applicant. In furtherance of the agreement, the respondent initially paid him about 25 lakhs. Despite receiving the advance, the applicant did not supply the machine. The counsel representing the applicant stated that this case was a mere breach of contract and no offense of cheating and misappropriation is made out. Therefore, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The counsel representing the respondent submitted that the respondent is deprived of his legitimate amount. She contended that this is purely a civil dispute. However, she demanded that before the applicant is released on bail, he must submit the amount of 25 lakhs which he received as an advance. The counsel representing the applicant stated that the pre-condition of remitting 25 lakhs in order to get a bail is unreasonable. The Court upon considering the facts of the case, set aside the operative part of the order by the lower court and instead released the applicant on bail by imposing certain conditions. The Court remarked; “Therefore, for more than one year and three months the Applicant was unable to avail of that order because of the onerous pre-condition of depositing Rs.25 Lakhs…imposing Rs.25 Lakhs as a pre-condition in the operative part was not permissible. There is absolutely no discussion in the order as to why such condition was imposed; It appears that since the FIR mentions that Rs.25 Lakhs were paid by the informant, the condition was imposed that Rs.25 Lakhs should be deposited. This is prejudging the issue without trial. It is well settled in different judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court that such conditions should not be imposed”