JUDGMENT :

The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through video conferencing today at 12.00 noon. They have no complain with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. Heard Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. In this application, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the part of the order dated 14.01.2020, passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in B.P. No. 02 of 2020 (arising out of Complaint Case No.6136 of 2019) wherein the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has imposed a fine of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand) to be deposited in favour of the Excise Department as a condition for grant of bail.

4. Petitioner is an accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had stored 106.2 litres of country-made and foreign liquor in his shop. On receipt of the aforesaid information, the shop of the petitioner was raided and the materials were seized and thereafter the criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and he was taken in custody. The petitioner moved for regular bail before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which was allowed and the bail was granted, but with a condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand) as fine in favour of the Excise Department through e-challan by entering into the website of the Government of Jharkhand. Aggrieved by the condition imposed upon the petitioner, to deposit the fine, petitioner has approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid condition, which has been imposed.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition, which has been imposed, is absolutely erroneous and dehors the provisions of law. He submits that fine cannot be imposed as a condition of bail. He submits that though conditions can be imposed while granting bail, but, such conditions cannot be dehors the provisions of law. He submits that the conditions should be in consonance with the provisions laid down in Sections 437, 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’). He submits that the aforesaid order amounts to holding the petitioner guilty without a trial and thus, the condition imposed is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the Court is well within its jurisdiction to impose any condition in lieu of grant of bail. He submits that from perusal of aforesaid Sections of the Code, it is crystal clear that the legislation has given power to the Court to impose any condition for grant of bail. The Court has exercised its jurisdiction and has imposed condition, thus, it cannot be said that the discretionary power has been used in an arbitrary manner and nor can it be said that the discretionary powers are dehors the law. Learned A.P.P. further submits that from the impugned order, it would be quite clear that the petitioner was ready to deposit any amount of fine, whatever may be imposed by the Court, thus, the Court below has directed the petitioner to pay the fine. He submits that the petitioner cannot now backtrack from his voluntary submission before the Court below. He submits that since the petitioner submitted to pay the fine, is now estopped from filing this application and this application is not maintainable.

7. The main contention in this application is whether the condition, which has been imposed upon the petitioner in lieu of grant of bail is sustainable in the eyes of law or not.

8. Provisions as to bail and bail bonds are enshrined in Chapter XXXIII of the Code. Section 437 provides for grant of bail when a person accused or a suspect has approached before a Court other than the High Court or the Court of Sessions. In this case, bail was granted by the Judicial Commiss