Back
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA
Yashik Jindal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condition of bail subjected to deposit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. precedent against onerous bail conditions. (Para 3) |
| 3. setting aside bail condition. (Para 4) |
| 4. petitions allowed and applications disposed. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
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.
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.
6. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
conditions for grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making a grant of bail illusory. The conditions while granting bail should be reasonable, so that it m....
Grant of bail – Condition to deposit huge amount cannot be imposed.
Imposing a financial deposit as a condition for bail is impermissible and criminal proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings.
While granting bail, the Court should not impose onerous conditions.
Bail – Imposition of condition for deposit of bank guarantee as a pre-deposit for bail is not proper.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
