Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, N. Vennila, accused no.2 in C.C.No.59 of 2016 pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, filed a criminal original petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking modification of a condition imposed by the trial court. The case pertains to an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), registered as ECIR/CEZO/22/2011 dated 26.08.2011. The trial court, while recalling the non-bailable warrant issued due to the petitioner's continuous absence from 2016 onwards, had imposed two conditions: (i) execution of a bond under Section 91 BNSS for Rs. 10,00,000/- with two sureties, and (ii) deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- into the City Civil Court within three weeks. The petitioner complied with the first condition but sought modification of the second, citing financial inability to mobilise the funds. The respondent, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor for the Enforcement Directorate, opposed the modification, noting the petitioner's initial non-cooperation. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the trial was in progress and directed the petitioner to cooperate for its expeditious completion. Considering the petitioner's financial hardship and the fact that the bond condition had been satisfied, the court modified the deposit condition, reducing the amount from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The court further warned that any non-cooperation would invite appropriate action by the trial court. The petition was disposed of with this modification.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail Conditions - Modification - Section 528 BNSS - Section 91 BNSS - The petitioner, accused no.2 in a PMLA case, sought modification of the condition to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed by the trial court while recalling non-bailable warrant. The High Court, noting the petitioner's financial hardship and that the bond under Section 91 BNSS had already been executed, reduced the deposit amount to Rs. 1,00,000/- and directed the petitioner to cooperate with the trial. Held that the condition of deposit is modified to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition imposed by the trial court requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- as a condition for bail should be modified in light of the petitioner's financial inability to comply.
Final Decision
The High Court modified the condition, reducing the deposit amount from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner was directed to deposit the reduced amount on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and to cooperate with the trial court for expeditious completion of trial. In case of non-cooperation, the trial court may take appropriate action.
Law Points
- Modification of bail conditions
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 91 BNSS
- financial hardship
- cooperation with trial
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 247
S.M. Subramaniam, M. Jothiraman
Mr. P. Sunderarajan (for petitioner), Mr. S. Sasikumar (Special Public Prosecutor for Enforcement Directorate)
The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal original petition seeking modification of bail condition imposed by trial court in a PMLA case.
Remedy Sought
Modification of the condition to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.30311 of 2024 dated 28.10.2023.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was unable to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- due to financial hardship, though she had complied with the other condition of executing a bond under Section 91 BNSS.
Previous Decisions
The trial court in Crl.M.P.No.30311 of 2024 dated 28.10.2023 had imposed conditions for recalling non-bailable warrant: (i) execute bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with two sureties, and (ii) deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- within 3 weeks.
Issues
Whether the condition to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- should be modified due to the petitioner's financial inability.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had already executed the bond under Section 91 BNSS but could not mobilise funds to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/-.
Respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner had not cooperated initially and was absent from 2016 onwards, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrant.
Ratio Decidendi
A condition of deposit imposed as a bail condition can be modified under Section 528 BNSS if the accused demonstrates genuine financial hardship, provided the accused cooperates with the trial and other conditions are complied with.
Judgment Excerpts
Since the petitioner/accused no.2 was continuously absent, the trial court imposed a condition that the petitioner/accused no.2 shall execute a bond under Section Section 91 of BNSS for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with two sureties for a like sum on or before 30.10.2024. Further, she shall deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs Only) into City Civil Court within 3 weeks, failing which suitable orders will be passed.
As far as the condition to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is concerned, we are inclined to modify the said condition. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused No.2 shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.
Procedural History
The petitioner, accused no.2 in C.C.No.59 of 2016 under PMLA, was absent from 2016 onwards, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrant. She filed a petition to recall the warrant, and the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.30311 of 2024 dated 28.10.2023 allowed the recall subject to conditions including deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The petitioner then filed Crl.OP.No.31417 of 2024 under Section 528 BNSS seeking modification of the deposit condition.
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): 528, 91
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA):
