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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 981

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Madhurijya Sarmah Salem Veng Mualpui Aizawl - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Mizoram Aizawl - Respondent
Crl.Pet./15/2024, I.A.(Crl.)/30/2024
Decided On : 06-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga Advocate, Mr. Lalfakawma
For the Respondent: P.P./Addl.PP Mizoram

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail conditions must be reasonable and not excessively burdensome, as imposing onerous conditions can infringe upon the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

BAIL - Bail Conditions and Excessiveness - Section 301 Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C., Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the imposition of bail conditions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and emphasized that conditions should not be excessive or onerous, as this could effectively deny bail and infringe upon the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court referenced previous judgments to highlight that bail conditions must be reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of the case, ultimately modifying the bail bond amount from Rs. 45 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs.

Fact of the Case:

Dr. Madhurjya Sarma sought to modify a bail condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl, requiring a bail bond of Rs. 45 lakhs in a case involving large-scale fraud against Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. The petitioner argued that the amount was excessive and oppressive, affecting his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the bail condition of Rs. 45 lakhs was excessive and tantamount to a denial of bail. It noted that the petitioner’s bank account was frozen, making it impossible for him to meet such a high bail amount. The court emphasized that bail conditions should not be so onerous that they effectively deny bail.

Issues: Whether the bail bond amount of Rs. 45 lakhs imposed by the trial court was excessive and violated the petitioner’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that bail conditions must be reasonable and not excessively burdensome. It reiterated that imposing onerous conditions could infringe upon the fundamental rights of the accused and that the amount of bail should not be disproportionate to the nature of the alleged offense.

Final Decision: The court modified the bail bond amount from Rs. 45 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs, allowing the petitioner to secure bail under more reasonable conditions while maintaining other conditions set by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Rohmingthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Linda L Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor, for the state respondent. Also heard Mr. M. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant. It is to be noted here that the first informant i.e. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., (MMFSL), represented by Chanpreet Singh, has filed one interlocutory application under Section 301 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Petition No.15/2024, for allowing to assist the Public Prosecutor and to file objection in the petition. And after hearing both side, the first informant was allowed to assist the Public Prosecutor and to participate in the hearing on the said without however allowing it to file written objection.

2. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, namely, Dr. Madhurjya Sarma, has prayed for partially set aside/modify the order dated 13.06.2024, by reducing the bail bond amount of Rs.45 lakhs, imposed by the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl in Bail Application No. 676/2024, arising out of Crime and Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 03/2024, under Sections 408/419/466/467/468/470/471/477A/120B IPC. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 13.06.2024, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl had granted bail to the petitioner, who was arrested in the aforesaid case, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.45,00,000/-with two sureties of like amount.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, is adumbrated herein below:-

    “One Chanpreet Singh, Business Head, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. (MMFSL) lodged one FIR with the Officer-In-Charge, Crime and Economic Police Station, Aizwal, Mizoram alleging inter-alia amongst others that during routine verification, they have come across a large scale fraud committed by their Area Business Manager Mr. Jakir Habibur Hussain in sanctioning many vehicles loans at their Aizawl Branch. Then on broader scrutiny of the records they have found Jakir Habibur Hussain and his co-conspirator H. Lalthankima and Edenthara had impersonated the official identity of the informant and had created a fake entity i.e. Mahindra Finance Limited with similar description of his company and executed fraudulent transactions, including cash in crores through fake entity set up through his coconspirator. In order to open the said account the accused persons have forged company seal, PAN number, represented themselves as authorized person of MMFSL with the common object to gain undue advantage and defraud the MMFSL and public at large. Account statement of the fake account reveals that there was transaction of more than Rs. 80 Crores in the said account within a short span of nearly 3 years.

Upon the said FIR the Officer-In-Charge Crime and Economic Offence P.S. had registered a case, being Case No. 03/2024, under Sections 408/419/466/467/468/470/471/ 477A/120B IPC and carried out investigation. Then on completion of investigation, the I.O. had arrested accused Jakir Habibur Hussain and others including the present petitioner who were arrested in the said case and forwarded them to the court. Then after competition investigation, the I.O. had laid charge sheet against the accused persons to stand trial in the court under the said sections of law on 25.06.2024.

The petitioner, namely, Dr. Madhurjya Sarma, during the course of investigation, was granted bail by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl vide impugned order dated 13.06.2024, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.45,00,000/- with two sureties.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition for partially setting aside/modify the order dated 13.06.2024, by reducing the bail bond amount of Rs.45 lakhs imposed by the court of learned Addl. Sessions Ju

      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