IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
Criminal Misc. No.35297 of 2016
(18.10.2023)
Brajesh Chandra Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar and Anr. ... Opp. Parties
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Imposition of onerous condition – Conditions attached with order granting bail are meant to ensure that accused participates in investigation or attends Court and does not interfere either in investigation or trial by tampering evidence – As per condition, Petitioner is obliged to execute sale deed in favour of informant or pay back earnest money failing which his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled – Such a condition is not permissible under bail jurisdiction – Impugned condition is whimsical and no way permissible in eyes of law – impugned condition set aside. (Paras 6 to 8)
ORDER
The present petition has been filed to quash the condition imposed by Ld. Additional Session Judge-I, Danapur, in the order dated 25.07.2014, passed in B.P. No. 324 of 2014, whereby Ld. Additional Sessions Judge has directed to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.
2. The impugned condition reads as follows: –
“Considering the aforesaid facts as well as the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases page 699, the above named accusedpetitioner Brajesh Chandra Singh is hereby enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each with condition that within two months of the release from the custody in this case, the petitioner shall either get the sale deed executed of the land in respect of which agreement to sell has been made between the parties or return back the entire them earnest money taken by te from the informant and his associate, otherwise the informant will be at liberty to file an application before the learned lower court for the cancellation of bail of the petitioner and the learned lower court will pass the necessary order as per law.”
3. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that this condition is too onerous and the Civil Court is already seized of the matter relating to the specific performance of the contract between the parties in regard to the land in question and there was no occasion to grant such a relief under bail jurisdiction in the garb of imposing conditions.
4. Ld. APP for the State also fairly concedes that such conditions cannot be imposed for enlargement on bail, more particularly, when the Civil Court is already seized of the matter.
5. I considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the material on record.
6. I find that Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 25.07.2014, passed in B.P. No. 324 of 2014, has granted regular bail to the Petitioner in view of his satisfaction that the alleged facts and circumstances constitute a dispute of civil nature. However, he has imposed onerous condition upon the Petitioner to remain on bail. As per the condition, the Petitioner is obliged to execute sale deed in favour of the informant or pay back the earnest money, failing which, his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled. Such a condition is not permissible under bail jurisdiction. The conditions attached with the order granting bail are meant to ensure that the accused participates in the investigation or attends the Court and does not interfere either in investigation or trial by tampering evidence. However, the condition imposed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge has nothing to do with such object. By imposing the impugned condition, Ld. A.D.J has granted relief to the informant which can be granted only by a Civil Court after adjudication of rival claims of the parties.
7. As such, the impugned condition is whimsical and no way permissible in the eyes of law.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned condition, however, keeping the remaining part of the order dated 25.07.2014, passed in B.P. No. 324 of 2014 intact.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of onerous conditions while granting default bail would frustrate the purpose of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, and su....
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.
Imposing a bank guarantee as a bail condition is illegal, as established by the Supreme Court.
Bail conditions must be reasonable and not infringe upon the rights of the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.