HC Reiterates: Onerous Conditions directing the petitioner to deposit money cannot be imposed while granting bail

 

A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira was approached with the impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate who imposed a hefty amount on the petitioner as a pre-condition to get bail. In this regard, the court relied on certain Supreme Court judgments and held that the aforementioned condition was actually onerous and that harsh and excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail.

Brief Facts:

The case of the petitioner is that she is a senior citizen (lady) aged about 70 years and the main accused/A1, using the ignorance of the petitioner had obtained a signature from her in certain documents and pledged spurious jewelry to obtain a loan amount to the tune of Rs.4,65,200/-. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to Judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 408 and 420 of I.P.C. After being arrested when the petitioner applied an application for bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate, onerous conditions were imposed directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the alleged misappropriated amount i.e., Rs.2,32,600/-. Despite the bail granted on 14.11.2022, the petitioner was unable to raise the money, thereby, she had filed Crl.M.P.No.5511 of 2022, seeking modification of a condition, whereas, the Trial Court dismissed the petition

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that it is the well-settled position of law that the process of criminal law cannot be utilized for arm twisting and money recovery and more so excessive conditions imposed on the petitioner, in practical by manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail and thereby, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate imposing a condition to deposit 50% of the alleged misappropriated amount i.e., Rs.2,32,600/- as a precondition for release on bail is not only erroneous but it also amounts to injustice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chouhan Vs. Union of India and Another 2023 Livelaw (SC) 61, wherein the Court held that the onerous condition directing the petitioner to deposit money cannot be imposed while granting of bail.

 

Contentions of the Respondent:

The total amount cheated by the main accused/A1 together with customers/accused persons was Rs.93,79,360/-. As far as the petitioner is concerned, she along with the main accused had cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs.4,65,200/- and thereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the misappropriated amount i.e., Rs.2,32,600/- to the credit of Cr.No.02 of 2021.

Observations of the Court:

The court observed that such a hefty amount in the present case to grant bail was actually onerous. Reliance was then placed on the case of Guddan @ Roop Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2023 Live Law (SC) 45, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the excessive conditions imposed on the appellant, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to grant bail, and the Apex Court had also deprecated the practice of imposing onerous conditions at the time of grant of bail.

The court added to the aforementioned observation by citing Munish Bhasin and Others Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another (2009) 4 SCC 45, wherein the Hon’ble Court in its reasoning held that harsh and excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail.

Thus, the Court was of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the alleged misappropriation amount i.e., Rs.2,32,600/- to the credit of Cr.No.02 of 2021 is onerous and liable to be set aside.

 

The decision of the Court:

The impugned order was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be released on the condition that “the petitioner shall execute her own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Salem”.

Case Title: A. Malliga vs The State represented by the Inspector of Police

 

Coram: Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira

Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.4204 of 2023

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. E.C. Ramesh

 

 

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Suganthan

Read Judgment 

 

 

 

 

 Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

 Social media is you.

 (With input from news agency language)

  If you like this story, share it with a friend!   
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .