SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Mangesh S Patil, J.
Ashok Kacharu Malve - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application No. 1418 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
Atmaram J Patil, Advocate, P.G. Borade, Advocate, V.R. Dhorde, Advocate

The court emphasized that bail conditions should serve the purpose of securing public money and should be appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Headnote:

Bail Conditions - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code - Section 406, 420, 465, 468, 34 - Summary: The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge to modify bail conditions under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the conditions imposed were inappropriate and did not serve the purpose of securing public money. The impugned order was quashed and set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants sought relief from onerous bail conditions imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which included restrictions on alienating properties and a cash security deposit. The informant, representing a bank, argued that the conditions were necessary due to the involvement of public money in the alleged fraud.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the conditions imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge were inappropriate and did not serve the purpose of securing public money. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order.

Issues: The main issue was the appropriateness of the bail conditions imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, particularly in relation to securing public money and the jurisdiction to modify bail conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditions imposed were inappropriate and did not serve the purpose of securing public money. The court also discussed the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge to modify bail conditions under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the Rule was made absolute in the above terms.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S Patil, J. - Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. Couple of accused from the Crime No.347/2019 registered with Shrirampur City Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are before this Court invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur in Criminal MA.No.106/2020 on 09.07.2020 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed further conditions for releasing them on bail, over and above what were imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that the learned Magistrate for the reasons recorded in the order had directed the applicants to be released on bail subject to usual conditions. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the original informant who represents his bank preferred a Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of the bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, suo moto, having concluded that the Revision was not maintainable, the order granting bail being an interlocutory order directed the proceeding to be converted as an Application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is thereafter by the impugned order few onerous conditions have been imposed which in effect deprive the applicants of their valuable right to be released on bail. No such onerous conditions could have been imposed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has over enthusiastically sought an undertaking from the applicants that they would not alienate or transfer their properties and further directed them to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- each as a cash security.

4. The learned advocate would submit that apart from the fact that the informant had also not sought such conditions to be put, the conditions would work as an impediment in the applicants getting released on bail. He would refer to the decision in the case of Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.1436/2013 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Appeal No.2/2013 dated 13.09.2013 and the decision in the case of Ramathal and Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.418/2009 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5668/2008.

5. The learned advocate for the applicant would further submit that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no power or jurisdiction under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to put any such condition. The power would vest either in the Magistrate granting the bail under Section 437 in view of Sub-Section 5 of that Section, whereas, even the Sessions Court or the High Court could exercise such power under Clause (b) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the learned Additional Session Judge was not intending to invoke such power, he could not have imposed the conditions. The impugned order being illegal it be quashed and set aside.

6. The learned advocate for the respondent informant would submit that there is no illegality in exercising the powers vested in the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Nomenclature apart, when the law confers upon the learned Additional Sessions Judge powers to put such conditions under Sub-clause (b) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no fault can be found with the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in putting the conditions.

7. The learned advocate would further submit that the applicants were the authorized gold valuers of the Bank. They fraudulently and dishonestly certified the gold ornaments of the borrowers of the purity which they were not and thereby helped these borrowers to borrow money from the Bank and the applicants have the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top