1. Tax evasion and input-tax credit fraud — High Court imposition of monetary deposit condition for grant of bail. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1315
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Yashik Jindal – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2982-2983/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-12-2022 in SBCRMBA No. 14792/2022 21-12-2022 in SBCRLMA No. 427/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur)
Decided on : 28-03-2023
Important Points
The Supreme Court deprecated the imposition of onerous financial conditions, such as requiring a large monetary deposit, as a prerequisite for the grant of bail, setting aside such a condition in line with the precedent established in Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Conditions
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail conditions - The High Court imposed a bail condition requiring deposit of Rs. 2 crores due to allegations of tax evasion and fraudulent input-tax credit. This Court previously deprecated such onerous conditions in Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India, emphasizing that bail should not be contingent on substantial financial implications. (Paras 2, 3)
(B) Petitioners challenged the High Court's order for imposing bail conditions. (Paras 1, 4)
(C) The Supreme Court found the condition to deposit was excessive and thereby set it aside while permitting the petitioners to withdraw previously deposited amounts. (Paras 4, 5)
Issues: Whether imposing a deposit as a condition for bail is justified or excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: The imposition of onerous bail conditions was against established legal precedents, as it could impede the accused's right to secure bail.
Result: Special leave petitions allowed; bail condition set aside.
(B) Petitioners challenged the High Court's order for imposing bail conditions. (Paras 1, 4)
(C) The Supreme Court found the condition to deposit was excessive and thereby set it aside while permitting the petitioners to withdraw previously deposited amounts. (Paras 4, 5)
Issues: Whether imposing a deposit as a condition for bail is justified or excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: The imposition of onerous bail conditions was against established legal precedents, as it could impede the accused's right to secure bail.
Result: Special leave petitions allowed; bail condition set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv., Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR, Mr. Ajay Nain, Adv., Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv., Mr. Karan Thakur, Adv., Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Anmol Harna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jayant K. Sud, ASG, Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv., Mr. Kartik Jasra, Adv.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv., Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR, Mr. Ajay Nain, Adv., Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv., Mr. Karan Thakur, Adv., Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Anmol Harna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jayant K. Sud, ASG, Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv., Mr. Kartik Jasra, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Imposition of onerous monetary conditions for the grant of bail is deprecated. (Para 3 )
3. Onerous monetary deposit conditions should not be imposed as a prerequisite for the grant of bail. (Para 3 )
4. Monetary deposit condition set aside — Petitioners permitted to seek refund of deposited amounts — Other bail conditions upheld. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
5. Can a court impose a heavy monetary deposit as a condition for bail?
The court has deprecated the imposition of onerous monetary conditions for the grant of bail. (Para 3 )
6. What is the remedy for funds deposited under a bail condition that is later set aside?
The parties are entitled to seek the withdrawal or refund of the amounts deposited. (Para 4 )
7. Does the removal of a monetary deposit condition exempt the accused from other bail requirements?
No, the accused must continue to comply with all other conditions imposed for the grant of bail. (Para 4 )
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We requested Mr. Jayant Sood, learned Addl. Soclicitor General, to assist the Court in the present petitions since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
2. By the impugned order, the High Court imposed a condition of deposit of Rs. 2 crores upon the petitioners, for the grant of bail. They are accused of evading tax and derived the benefit of input-tax credit to the tune of Rs. 11.3 crores.
3. This Court has depracated imposition of such onerous conditions previously-notably in the recent order in “ Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India ” (Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2023) decided on 20.01.2023.
4. Following the order in Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India , the condition requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 crores is hereby set aside. The Court is informed that the petitioner had borrowed sums of money and deposited the same. It is open for them to seek withdrawal/refund of such amounts. They shall, however, comply with the other conditions imposed on them.
5. The special leave petitions are allowed in the above terms.
6. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
