Case Note & Summary
The applicants, accused in Crime No.347/2019 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 read with 34 IPC, were granted bail by the Magistrate under Section 437 CrPC with usual conditions. The informant (bank) filed a Revision under Section 397 CrPC seeking cancellation of bail. The Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, suo moto held the revision not maintainable as the bail order was interlocutory, and converted it into an application under Section 439(2) CrPC. By order dated 09.07.2020, the Sessions Judge imposed additional conditions: the applicants were to give an undertaking not to alienate or transfer their properties and to deposit Rs.5,00,000 each as cash security. The applicants challenged these conditions before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court observed that the conditions were onerous and effectively deprived the applicants of their right to bail. The court noted that the informant had not sought such conditions. Relying on Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi, the court held that bail conditions must be reasonable and not excessive. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Sessions Court to pass a fresh order on the application under Section 439(2) CrPC, after hearing both sides, without imposing onerous conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail Conditions - Onerous Conditions - Section 482, 437, 439(2) CrPC - The Additional Sessions Judge imposed conditions of deposit of Rs.5,00,000 each and undertaking not to alienate property while dealing with an application under Section 439(2) CrPC for cancellation of bail. The High Court held that such conditions are onerous and impede the right to bail, and are not permissible under law. The court relied on Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi to hold that bail conditions must be reasonable and not excessive. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge could impose onerous conditions such as deposit of Rs.5,00,000 each and undertaking not to alienate property while granting bail under Section 439(2) CrPC, and whether such conditions are valid.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 09.07.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, in Criminal MA No.106/2020 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sessions Court to pass a fresh order on the application under Section 439(2) CrPC, after hearing both sides, without imposing onerous conditions.
Law Points
- Bail conditions must be reasonable and not onerous
- Section 482 CrPC can be invoked against bail conditions
- Sessions Court cannot impose conditions beyond what is necessary to secure presence of accused
- Cash deposit as condition for bail is onerous
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (03) 5
Criminal Application No.1418 of 2020
Mr. Atmaram J. Patil (for applicants), Mr. P.G. Borade (APP for State), Mr. V.R. Dhorde (for respondent no.2)
Shri Ashok Kacharu Malve and Rameshwar Kacharu Malve
The State of Maharashtra and Ahmadnagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC challenging onerous bail conditions imposed by Sessions Court.
Remedy Sought
Applicants sought quashing of the order dated 09.07.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, imposing additional conditions of deposit of Rs.5,00,000 each and undertaking not to alienate property.
Filing Reason
The applicants were aggrieved by the onerous conditions imposed by the Sessions Court while dealing with an application under Section 439(2) CrPC for cancellation of bail.
Previous Decisions
The Magistrate granted bail under Section 437 CrPC with usual conditions. The informant filed Revision under Section 397 CrPC, which was converted into an application under Section 439(2) CrPC by the Sessions Court, which then imposed additional onerous conditions.
Issues
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge could impose onerous conditions of deposit of Rs.5,00,000 each and undertaking not to alienate property while granting bail under Section 439(2) CrPC?
Whether such conditions are valid and reasonable?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued that the conditions are onerous and impede their right to bail, and that the informant had not sought such conditions.
Applicants relied on Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi to submit that bail conditions must be reasonable and not excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
Bail conditions must be reasonable and not onerous. Imposing a cash deposit of Rs.5,00,000 each and an undertaking not to alienate property as conditions for bail under Section 439(2) CrPC is excessive and invalid, as it effectively deprives the accused of the right to bail.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has over enthusiastically sought an undertaking from the applicants that they would not alienate or transfer their properties and further directed them to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- each as a cash security.
No such onerous conditions could have been imposed.
Procedural History
Crime No.347/2019 was registered at Shrirampur City Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 read with 34 IPC. The Magistrate granted bail under Section 437 CrPC with usual conditions. The informant filed Revision under Section 397 CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, who suo moto held the revision not maintainable and converted it into an application under Section 439(2) CrPC. By order dated 09.07.2020, the Sessions Judge imposed additional conditions. The applicants challenged this order under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 406, 420, 465, 468, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 437, 439(2), 397, 482
