Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Md. Salim - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 12 of 2021
Decided On : 23-03-2021
Default Bail - Conditions Imposed by Court - Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Saravanan Vs. State - (i) Cril. Petn. No. 28 of 2020, Jangpao Haokip Vs. The State of Manipur & Anr. dated 21.12.2020 and (ii) Criminal Revision Petition No. 2020, Mr. Jamkhomang Baite Vs. The State of Manipur dated 28.01.2021 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the interpretation provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saravanan Vs. State. It held that no conditions of deposit of alleged amount can be imposed while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court partly quashed and set aside the impugned order, granting bail to the petitioner with specific directions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for carrying contraband drugs and remanded into police custody. After the completion of 180 days with no charge sheet filed, the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur passed a default bail order, imposing certain conditions including a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which the petitioner challenged on the ground of being a poor person and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. would apply to the accused arrested under the provision of the NDPS Act. It held that no conditions of deposit of alleged amount can be imposed while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issues involved were the imposition of conditions, including a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-, by the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur while granting default bail to the petitioner, and the applicability of the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. to the accused arrested under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saravanan Vs. State, which held that no conditions of deposit of alleged amount can be imposed while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court partly quashed and set aside the impugned order, granting bail to the petitioner with specific directions, including the release on default bail, cooperation with the investigating agency, and a prohibition on leaving the State of Manipur.
ORDER
1. I heard Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur in FIR No. 94(11)2019 HNG P.S. U/s 21 (b) ND&PS Act dated 19.09.2020.
3. According to the petitioner, he was arrested on 12.11.2019 by the Heikrumakhong Police Station for the allegation that the petitioner carried contraband drugs and remanded into police custody till 15.11.20219 by the Court and then to judicial custody. Since then he is in jail on the charge of carrying contraband drugs.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that after completion of 180 days no charge sheet has been filed by the respondent police and hence, the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur has passed the present impugned default bail order dated 19.09.2020 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the Learned Special Judge was pleased to release him on bail subject to his furnishing of a P.R. Bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount. It has been further directed by the Court that the petitioner shall also deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- which will be refunded after conclusion of trial.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur this instant petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter alia ground that the petitioner is a poor person and the conditions imposed by the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur amounts to denial of bail itself that the insistence of deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- not only harsh but oppressive that Section 441 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate a power of demanding of cash security by the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur for the release of the petitioner on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is rendered a virtual denial and that imposition of conditions which the petitioner being a poor man cannot fulfil his violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents but Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP for the respondents made oral submissions by representing that the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur has passed rightly by following the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Thamisharasi & Ors. reported in (1995) 4 SCC 190.
7. Mr. Babloo, learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the issue involved herein is already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.10.2020 in Saravanan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 681-682 of 2020 and based on that orders, this Hon'ble Court passed judgment and orders in (i) Cril. Petn. No. 28 of 2020, Jangpao Haokip Vs. The State of Manipur & Anr. dated 21.12.2020 and (ii) Criminal Revision Petition No. 2020, Mr. Jamkhomang Baite Vs. The State of Manipur dated 28.01.2021.
8. Hence, the said decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court is squarely applicable to the petitioner's case also. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition as prayed in this petition.
9. This Court heard both the parties and also perused the documents and the citations produced by both the parties.
10. On the expiry of the statutory period, the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur by in its order dated 19.09.2020 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. releasing the petitioner on default bail/statutory bail, the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur vide its order dated 19.09.2020 was pleased to release the petitioner on bail but unfortunately, by releasing him on bail, the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur had imposed certain conditions vide its order dated 19.09.2020 and the relevant portion reads as under :-
"Accused Md. Salim interacted through V.C.
He was first remanded to police custody on 13.11.2019 and subsequently to judicial custody on 15.11.2019. He has been languishing in jail since then.
Quantity involved is intermediate.
Accused is granted bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C.. subject to his fur
No conditions of deposit of alleged amount can be imposed while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
Excessive bail conditions infringe personal liberty and violate the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21.
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.
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.
No condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed while granting default bail/statutory bail under section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
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 ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
