Conditions for anticipatory bail must be imposed with judicious application of mind, and the recovery of public money cannot be a condition for bail.

JUDGEMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

2. By invoking the Constitutional powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner challenges order dated 15-11-2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, in Misc.Cri.Appln. No.04 of 2021 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 440 of Cr.P.C. for relaxation of condition imposed in criminal bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

3. The present petitioner and others are involved in Crime No.347 of 2019 registered with Shrirampur City Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 468 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner/applicant had filed Bail Application No.251 of 2020 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, for anticipatory bail. That application came to be allowed on 13-01-2021 and condition No.2 was imposed thus :-

“2. The applicant shall deposit 50 % amount out of Rs.3,02,258/- with the A.D.C.C. Bank, Branch Shrirampur under protest within 15 date from the date of this order, reserving his right of civil remedy. A violation of this condition shall amount the cancellation of the bail automatically without any reference to this Court.”

It was thereafter by filing separate application under Section 440 of Cr.P.C., the applicant prayed for relaxation of that condition stating that he is falsely involved in the case and he was in fact employed on daily wage basis in the shop of goldsmith by which he used to earn Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day on the day he used to get the work. He is unable to deposit the amount of Rs.1,51,000/- i.e. 50 % of Rs.3,02,258/-, and therefore, he prayed for relaxing the said condition/cancellation of that condition.

4. The said application was objected by the State and it was contended that involvement of the petitioner/applicant is clearly seen, huge public money is involved in the case.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application on 15-11-2021.

6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. J. Patil for petitioner, learned APP Mr. S. P. Sonpawale for respondent No.1-State, and learned Advocate Mr. V. R. Dhorde for respondent No.2.

7. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Criminal Application No.1418 of 2020 which was in respect of co-accused to whom also similar type of condition was imposed and this Court held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge without there being any rhyme or reason seems to have imposed the conditions which are inappropriate in the facts and circumstances, and therefore, by allowing the said application cancelled the said condition regarding payment of amount. He also pointed out that in Cri. Bail Appln.No.45 of 2021, application filed by co-accused Kanchan Ashok Malve and another, the same Judge had not imposed any such condition regarding deposit of amount when that application came to be decided on 10-06-2021. He says that, yet the same Judge has rejected the said application filed by the petitioner on 15-11-2021 even after noting the decision by this Court in Criminal Application No.1418 of 2020. He further relied on the decision in Sumit Mehta vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, reported in 2013 (15) SCC 570, wherein it has been held that :-

“When High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused subject to deposit of an amount of Rs.1 Crore in fixed in the name of complainant, the Court is not totally excluded to impose a condition of this nature, but in this case Court could had not come to conclusion whether the allegations made are true or not which can only be ascertained after completion of trial, and therefore, when an onerous condition has been imposed, it has been set aside.”

8. The learned APP strongly opposed the application and submitted that the learned J