Onerous bail conditions cannot be imposed for statutory bail, and the court must consider only the requirement of whether the accused person is prepared to furnish bail.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 r/w. Section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., to modify the condition imposed by the learned Special Judge, (FAC) Special Court under TNOID Act Cases, Madurai, dated 16.02.2022 in Cr.M.P.No.15 of 2022.)

1. The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking orders to modify the condition imposed by the learned Special Judge, (FAC) Special Court under TNOID Act Cases, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.15 of 2022, dated 16.02.2022.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned Special Judge, (FAC) Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai, has imposed some conditions, which are onerous conditions and that too for releasing the petitioners on statutory bail.

3. The learned Special Judge has imposed the following conditions :

(a) This petitioners are directed to be released on bail an executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties for the like sum.

(b)One of the sureties shall be a member of Local Body.

(c) Another surety shall be the blood-relative of the petitioners.

(d) Further, both petitioners should deposit each Rs.2,00,000/- (Total Rs.4,00,000/-) into the credit of this case.

(e) And further, after their release, they have to appear before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 am and 05.00 pm until further orders.”

4. The Honourable Supreme Court in Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi reported in CDJ 2000 SC 025 has specifically held that any bail condition which is in the nature of onerous condition is against law. Again in Ramathal & Others Vs. Inspector of Police & Another reported in CDJ 2009 SC 443, the Honourable Apex Court has disapproved the bail condition imposed by the bail Court to deposit huge amount.

5. Moreover, it is now settled law that when a Court considers a statutory bail, onerous conditions cannot be imposed and the Court has to satisfy itself, that only requirement as to whether the accused person is prepared to furnish bail.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in three Judges Bench judgment in Saravanan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police in Crl.A.Nos.681 and 682 of 2020, dated 15.10.2020, as observed as follows:

“9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the scheme and the object and purpose of default bail/statutory bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking into consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular bail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. However, as observed by this Court in catena of decisions and more particularly in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60 th or 90th day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default bail, and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused applies for default bail and furnish bail. Therefore, the only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no charge sheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. As observed by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) and in other decisions, the accused