Bombay High Court
Dineshbhai Premjibhai Parmar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso ... on 10 January, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:334
19.wp.11.2025.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.11 OF 2025
Dineshbhai Premjibhai Parmar,
Aged about: 36 Years, Occ- Nil,
R/o- Indira Nagar, Plot No. 326,
Mansa, Gandhinagar, Gujrat,
(Presently at Central Jail At Buldhana) ..... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Dhad Police Station,
District Buldhana. .... RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------
Mr. P. K. Dahat, Counsel for petitioner.
Ms. Ritu Sharma, APP for respondent /State.
----------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 10.01.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel
appearing for the parties.
3. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking modification
of the conditions imposed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Buldhana, while granting the bail to the present petitioner
19.wp.11.2025.Judgment.odt
in Regular Bail Application No.410/2023 in connection with the
Crime No.347/2023 dated 30.12.2023.
4. The petitioner is arraigned as an accused in
connection with Crime No.347/2023 registered under Sections
8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act (for short 'the NDPS Act') and he was arrested
and is behind bars. He has filed an application for grant of bail,
as the crime was registered against him. On the basis of the
report, on an allegation that he was the driver of the truck
wherein the contraband article Ganja was transported on
09.11.2023. It was submitted that he was not aware of the
owner of the truck who used the said truck for transporting the
said contraband article and therefore, he driven the truck to
transport the other articles, however, the truck was intercepted
and he was arrested. By considering this submission and the
material collected during the investigation, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Buldhana released the present petitioner on bail
on condition to furnish the surety of Rs.1,00,000/- and the said
condition was put as he is not resident of Maharashtra, but he is
a permanent resident of Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, who
submitted that the condition imposed while releasing the
petitioner on bail is harsh one. The petitioner is from poor strata
19.wp.11.2025.Judgment.odt
of the society and he has no means to deposit either the cash
amount or to furnish the surety of Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore,
the condition be modified and he be released on bail on his
personal bond.
6. The said petition is strongly opposed by the State on
the ground that there is every chance of abscondence of the
present petitioner if he is released on the personal bond. The
allegation regarding the transporting of the contraband article is
serious in nature. Though there is bar under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, he is already released on bail, but then that condition
is required to secure his presence before the Court. In view of
that, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the
impugned order as well as the record, it reveals that during
investigation, it reveals that the contraband Ganja was seized
from the truck which the petitioner was driving and therefore, he
was arraigned as an accused. During the pendency of bail
application, the Investigating Officer has submitted his reply and
after considering the investigating papers, he was released on
bail by a imposing condition for furnishing the PR Bond of
Rs.1,00,000/-. Now the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the
position that no harsh conditions can be imposed while releasing
the accused on bail. In the case of Mithun Chatterjee Vs.
19.wp.11.2025.Judgment.odt
State of Odisha in Special Leave Petition No.4705/2021
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered that imposition
of onerous conditions for grant of bail tantamount to denial of
bail. In the case of Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi)
reported in Manu/SC/0935/2013 wherein also it is held that
"the object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the
possibility of the person hampering the investigation. Thus, any
condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of
the investigation or trial, cannot be put has not permissible
under the law. So, the discretion of the Court while imposing
conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint. It is further
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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. We are of the view that the
present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such
extreme condition to be imposed."
8. As far as the contention of the petitioner that he
should be released on personal bond cannot be accepted
considering the gravity of the offence. Moreover, the Court has
19.wp.11.2025.Judgment.odt
to consider whether the availability of the accused could be there
if he is released on personal bond, therefore, the prayer of the
present petitioner to release him on personal bond cannot be
considered. The condition can be modified only to the extent
that instead of one surety, he can furnish more than one sureties
for the satisfaction of the Court. In view of that petition
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following
order.
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The petitioner is permitted to furnish surety of
Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more sureties.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(URMIL A JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/01/2025 15:38:38
