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) 1069

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sarang V Kotwal, J.
Mohammadali Jamaluddin Saiyyad @ Raunak Suresh Madhiwal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 168 of 2021; Interim Application No. 1182 of 2021
Decided On : 05-05-2021

Advocates appeared:
Abhinav Chandrachud, Advocate, R.V. Gupta, Advocate, Chetan S Damre, Advocate, Ajay Patil, Advocate

Bail conditions should not be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, making the grant of bail illusory.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Offence - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 120-B read with 34 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The Applicant sought bail in connection with a criminal offence registered under Sections 420, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant was directed to deposit Rs.22 Lakhs as a condition precedent for bail, which he was unable to comply with, leading to the present application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the condition of depositing Rs.22 Lakhs as a condition precedent for bail was onerous and beyond the Applicant's financial capacity, thereby practically denying him relief of bail. The court also noted that the imposition of such a heavy condition prejudged the issues between the parties without trial.

Issues: The issues revolved around the Applicant's entitlement to bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., the onerous condition of depositing Rs.22 Lakhs, and the Applicant's alleged role in the offence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the condition directing the Applicant to deposit Rs.22 Lakhs as a condition precedent for bail cannot be sustained, as it was beyond the Applicant's financial capacity and prejudged the issues without trial. The court emphasized that bail conditions should not be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, making the grant of bail illusory.

Final Decision: The court set aside the condition of depositing Rs.22 Lakhs and granted bail to the Applicant on certain conditions, including furnishing a PR bond and local solvent sureties, depositing any passport, providing residential address and contact number, and attending the police station and trial court as specified.

JUDGMENT

Sarang V. Kotwal, J. - This is an application for setting aside the condition of depositing Rs.22 Lakhs as a condition precedent for being released on bail. The second prayer is for the Applicant's release on bail in connection with C.R.No.I-101/2018 registered at Manmad City Police Station, District-Nashik.

2. Heard Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Shri Chetan Damre, learned Counsel for the Intervenor and Shri Ajay Patil, learned APP for the State.

3. The Applicant was arrested in connection with the above offence on 9.3.2019. The offence was registered under Sections 420, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The FIR was lodged by one Prashant Katkade on 31.5.2018. He has stated that he was in the business of construction and development. He wanted a project loan for his business. He came in contact with one of the accused Prakash Jadhav. The informant met him at Manmad. The accused Prakash Jadhav represented to the informant that he was representative of M/s. Cobra Financial Solution, Branch Walsad, Gujarat. He told the informant that through the Chief Officer of the said financial company he could get the loan of Rs.5 Crores @ 6% per annum for the informant's project at Nashik. The loan was to be repaid within five years. The FIR mentions that Prakash Jadhav represented to the informant that the present Applicant was the Chief Officer of the Financial Company. Thereafter the present Applicant, Prakash Jadhav, Prakash Parmar and Sajid Ajmeri met him at Manmad and decided to go ahead with their transaction. They inspected the documents and showed willingness to give loan. The informant was told by Prakash Parmar that he should meet the Applicant at hotel Fountain on Thane by-pass road. The informant paid in all Rs.22 Lakhs in cash by way of commission to obtain loan of Rs.5 Crores. However, no loan was sanctioned in his favour and he has lost that amount of Rs.22 Lakhs. On this basis, the FIR is lodged.

5. The Applicant was arrested as mentioned earlier. From the record it appears that the charge-sheet was not filed within time after the Applicant's arrest and at the first instance the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manmad City vide his order dated 10.5.2019 granted bail to the Applicant under the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. Vide the same order, notice was issued to the investigating officer to explain within seven days as to why the charge-sheet was not filed within prescribed time.

6. Dr. Chandrachud appearing for the Applicant submitted that after this order was passed on 10.5.2019; within four days i.e. on 14.5.2019, charge-sheet was filed and, therefore, the Applicant could not be released on bail. Thereafter the Applicant preferred another application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon vide his order dated 21.8.2020 in Criminal Bail Application No.98/2020. In the operative part of the order, the Applicant was directed to deposit Rs.22 Lakhs before the Magistrate as a condition precedent for his release on bail.

7. The Applicant was unable to comply with this condition and, therefore, moved Criminal Misc. Application No.25/2020 for relaxation of that particular condition and also for relaxation of condition of reporting to the police station. This Application was rejected and, therefore, the Applicant has preferred the present Application before this Court.

8. Dr. Chandrachud submitted that the Applicant deserves to be released on bail pursuant to the order passed by the J.M.F.C., Manmad City under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.. That order was passed on 10.5.2019 and the charge-sheet was filed shortly thereafter on 14.5.2019. It cannot be termed as reasonable time enabling the Applicant to comply with the directions of learned Magistrate for his release on bail. He submitted that even under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., the Applicant

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