The Allahabad High Court in a petition filed challenging the condition of ₹2.5 crore on the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail reiterated that any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail and further criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by the accused challenging imposition of condition no. 1 by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad directing her to deposit ₹2.5 crores along with 10% simple interest (of the amount) per annum from 2018 within one month of the grant of anticipatory bail.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the impugned condition No. 1 of the anticipatory bail order is onerous and unreasonable under the facts of this case. The object of imposing conditions is to secure the attendance of the accused and not to ruin the business of the accused-applicant.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the decision in the case of Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, wherein it was held that the imposition of condition to deposit the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs in the form of FDR in the Trial Court is an unreasonable condition and, therefore, we set aside the said condition as a condition precedent for granting anticipatory bail to the appellant-accused. Further, the court referred to the decision in the case of Munish Bhasin & Others vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), wherein it was held that while e imposing conditions on an accused who approaches the court under Section 438 of the Code, the court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which are not called for at all. There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under Section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code.
Further, the court reiterated that the words "any condition" used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail and further criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. It is open to a Court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the condition no. 1 of the impugned order.
Case Title: Meena Anand vs Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh
Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6222 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Vinayak Mithal
Advocate for the Respondent: Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Pawan Kumar Srivastava
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
