The accused is entitled to default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, subject to the conditions specified in the section. Imposing additional onerous conditions frustrates the purpose of default bail.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to modify the condition imposed on the petitioner in the bail order dated 7.3.2023 passed by the Special Judge Under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.992/2023 in Crime No.21/2022 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.)  This Criminal Original Petition is filed to modify the condition imposed on the petitioner in the bail order dated 7.3.2023 passed by the Special Judge Under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.992/2023 in Crime No.21/2022 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

2. The petitioner is facing a case in Crime No.21 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 409, 420 read with Section 109 and 34 IPC in respect of a financial scandal. It appears that he was arrested on 7.12.2022 and since no charge was filed by the respondent even after completion of 90 days, he moved for statutory bail. The court below, while granting the statutory bail, apart from imposing several other conditions, imposed a condition to deposit a sum of Rs.1 Crore or to deposit original title deed for the value of Rs.1 Crore alongwith valuation certificate obtained from the authority concerned within a period of 30 days from the date of his release, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Criminal Original Petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the condition to deposit such a huge sum or title deed to that value is an untenable and onerous one. He would further submit that the petitioner was released on bail on 9.3.2023 and since then, he had been complying with all other conditions. He would also submit that the co-accused by name Nehru, who has been a Director of the Company in question has not been imposed with any such onerous condition while granting bail by the Special Court in Crl.M.P.No.610 of 2023 by order dated 14.2.2203, whereas, the petitioner, who is only an employee of the Company has been imposed such a condition, while releasing him on statutory bail/default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C, which is contrary to the scheme of Section 167 Cr.P.C. He would also submit that the Apex Court and this Court have time and again observed that the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure delineates that provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C., give due regard to the personal liberty of a person and when the charge sheet has not been submitted within 60 days or 90 days, an accused cannot be detained by the police and the right in which accused becomes entitled to default bail and it cannot be frustrated either by the prosecution or the Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when a court feels that a prima facie has been made out for the purpose of granting bail, by no stretch of imagination, any onerous condition be passed, thereby thwarting and making the order inexecutable as it amounts to denial of bail. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in Saravanan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police (2020) 9 SCC 101.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), opposing for grant of bail, would submit that the offence involved is having high stake and thus, the learned Trial Judge has rightly imposed the condition on the petitioner and thereby the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

7. Admittedly, the bail granted to the petitioner is a default bail as he had been in judicial custody for more than the statutory period of 90 days and charge has not been filed by the respondent