The discretion of the court to impose conditions for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.PC should be exercised based on the nature of the offence and the specific circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1. This petition has been filed by accused under Section 482 Cr.PC to challenge the order dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana under Section 167(2) Cr.PC, admitting the petitioner to bail in a complaint bearing CNR No.PBLD03-001073-2021 registered under Section 132(1) (b) & (c) punishable under Section 132(1) (i) of CGST Act, only to the limited extent of the imposition of conditions on ground of same being unreasonable.

2. The petitioner, who is facing prosecution in the aforementioned complaint case, applied for his release on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.PC, wherein the Court vide its order dated 11.01.2021 accepted the prayer and admitted him to bail by imposing the following conditions:

1. Accused shall furnish a bank guarantee/FDR for an amount of Rs.50 lakhs to be forfeited to the State in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions imposed vide this order.

2. Accused shall come present on each and every date of hearing for appearance in the Court and for trial of the case.

3. Accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Country without permission of the Court. He shall surrender his passport in the Court if he possesses the same and in case he do not hold any passport his undertaking in form of an affidavit that he will not get any passport issued in his name without permission of the Court.

4. Accused shall not commit any offence of like nature or any other offence punishable under law.

5. Accused shall not try to influence the witnesses of the prosecution or tamper with the evidence.

6. Accused shall not change his appearance during the course of trial.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not press qua the condition imposed with respect to the petitioner not changing his appearance during the trial and would restrict his submissions qua the imposition of condition to furnish a bank guarantee/ FDR for amount of Rs.50 lakhs only as it was contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court in Saravanan vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, (2020) AIR (SC) 5010 wherein the Supreme Court set aside the condition imposed by the High Court directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.8 lakhs while being released on default bail. It has also been contended that the condition of deposit of a hefty amount for being released on default bail too was erroneous and against the mandate of law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on M. Ravindran vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2020) AIR (SC) 5245, Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) AIR (SC) 1910, G.A.Senthilkumar vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy (Crl. O.P.(MD) No.12307 of 2017) decided on 20.09.2017 and Jangpao Haokip vs. State of Manipur and another (Crl. Petn. No.28 of 2020) decided on 21.12.2020.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner Sahil Jain was involved in bogus transactions of approximately Rs.252 crores involving Input Tax Credit of more than Rs.17 crores in fourteen firms without there being any actual movement of goods, which resulted in a huge loss to the government exchequer. He also contended that during investigation it had come to light that besides the involvement of the initial fourteen firms in the alleged fraud, 11 more firms were created and operated by the petitioner to carry out bogus transactions. Learned counsel submitted that investigation was still underway to unearth the entire scam running into hundreds of crores of rupees. Still further it was contended that the imposition of Rs.50 lakhs in the form of FDR while granting default bail could not be said to be an onerous condition looking to the all