Onerous bail conditions must not unjustly differentiate between co-accused; bail should enhance personal liberty without acting as a debt recovery measure.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by one of the accused facing trial in FIR No.185/2018 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPC, P.S. Crime Branch under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 440, for setting aside the impugned order dated 11th November, 2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Patiala House Courts and for the modification of the order dated 13th October, 2020 whereby the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Patiala House Courts, directed the release of the petitioner on bail subject to the condition of his depositing Rs.5,00,000 in the court.

2. Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to a harsh condition, whereby the benefit of the bail order has been negated, inasmuch as an onerous condition has been placed on the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of the court. On the other hand, a co-accused with far more serious allegations against him has been granted bail without any such condition. Copy of the said order has been placed on the record as Annexure-A (page 90 of the e-file).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the allegation against the petitioner was that he had furnished a format of an appointment order used by the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna whereas, the co-accused Ashish had allegedly opened and operated bank accounts in fake names and appropriated Rs.45,00,000/- through five forged bank accounts. Yet, he has been granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with no deposit.

4. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 15 SCC 570 to contend that directing deposit was unjustified when it became an onerous condition for the accused to meet. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dilip Singh v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 779, where the Supreme Court has held that a criminal court, while exercising jurisdiction to grant bail or anticipatory bail, was not expected to act as a recovery agent.

5. Mr. G.M. Farooqui, learned APP for the State on the other hand submitted that this was not a case in which this Court ought to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., since each judge had the freedom to exercise discretion and the imposition of the condition in question was appropriate, as without the copy of the appointment order the other accused could not have swindled innocent people, promising them jobs. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

6. From the charge-sheet, it is clear that the petitioner has also acted in furtherance of a conspiracy by providing the format of the fake appointment letter of Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the co-accused Ashish, who as per the charge-sheet, had actually opened fake accounts into which Rs.45,00,000/- were deposited and had actually operated the bank accounts and removed money, has been admitted to bail without a condition of deposit.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Sumit Mehta (supra) noted that:

"11. While exercising power under Section 438 of the Code, the court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. For the same, while granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. The object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation. Thu