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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
Shri. A.Shafiq Ahmed - Petitioner
Versus
The State rep. by The Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.7778 of 2023
Decided On : 28-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.R.Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Saravanan
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor (VC) assisted by Mrs.G.Vrindha

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 439 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy - Criminal breach of trust by public servant - Punishment for cheating by personation - Petitioner stands remanded to judicial custody on 25.2.2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and substantive offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on allegation that he had conspired with some co-accused and created forged documents in name of Chennai Port Trust and Indian Bank and facilitated them to swindle the fund of Chennai Port Trust, which was deposited in Indian Bank, Koyambedu Branch in the form of Fixed Deposits - Held, No doubt, co-accused might have been imposed with similar conditions. Whereas, as far as petitioner is concerned, exclusive condition imposed has, in fact, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to grant of bail - Petitioner is unable to pay amount and he is languishing in jail - Petitioner had been arrested and despite bail having been granted, he is unable to come out is a sufficient indication that he is in unable raise funds - Further, it is also stated that petitioner has not received any amount in transaction - When Apex Body has very recently held that imposing such onerous conditions are unsustainable, especially, when petitioner has knocked doors of this court, respondent cannot stick on to concept of parity as settled principle would prevail over such concept and thereby this court has no hesitation to hold that specific condition with regard to deposit imposed by court below on petitioner for grant of bail in case on hand is liable to be set aside - Criminal Original Petition ordered accordingly.

ORDER :

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the case in Crl.M.P.No.1306 of 2023 dated 7.3.2023 in C.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai 600 104 and set aside or modify the bail condition directing the petitioner/Accused No.25 herein to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only) thereon.

The petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as A25 in C.C.No.16 of 2022 pending on the fie of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, has filed the present petition seeking to set aside one of the conditions imposed on him by the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Case, Chennai while granting him bail by order dated 7.3.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1306 of 2023.

2. The petitioner stands remanded to judicial custody on 25.2.2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and the substantive offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the allegation that he had conspired with some co-accused and created forged documents in the name of Chennai Port Trust and Indian Bank and facilitated them to swindle the fund of Chennai Port Trust, which was deposited in the Indian Bank, Koyambedu Branch in the form of Fixed Deposits.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 25.4.2022 by the Enforcement Directorate and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 arraying him as Accused No.31 in the said case, which is pending trial on the file of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in Special C.C.No.2 of 2002.

4. Now, the grievance of the petitioner in this case is that though he was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.1307 of 2023 by the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai by order dated 4.3.2023 insofar as Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2022 on some conditions, he could not come out on bail even after complying with the condition imposed therein due to his inability to comply with a condition, among other conditions, to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as security before the court imposed on him by the same court while granting bail in Crl.M.P.No.1306 of 2023 in respect of C.C.No.16 of 2022.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Rajarathinam appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has been granted bail by the court below by order dated 7.3.2023 in the case on hand, due to the specific condition to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, which is onerous in nature, he could not enjoy the personal liberty guaranteed by the statute, especially, when the petitioner has been granted bail by the same court by order dated 4.3.2023 without any such onerous condition. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Mithun Chatterjee vs. State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4705/2021 dated 12.11.2021) he would submit that the imposition of onerous condition for grant of bail tantamount to denial of bail and thereby, he seeks indulgence of this court in setting aside the specific condition.

6. Pointing out the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner, as narrated in the detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondent, to the effect that the petitioner had intentionally and deliberately forged the logo of Chennai Port Trust as well as the signatures of the authorised persons of Chennai Port Trust such as Chairman, FA & CAO and Director, Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner had conspired with other accused and created and forged the documents to swindle huge amount to the tune of Rs.45 crores and odd from the account of Chennai Port Trust maintained with Indian Bank Koyambedu. Refe

    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