Pankaj vs State Of Mp
2021 Latest Caselaw 4422 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4422 MP
Judgement Date : 17 August, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pankaj vs State Of Mp on 17 August, 2021

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                           1                      Cr.R.No.1493/2021

         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
               BENCH AT GWALIOR

         SB: Hon.Shri Justice S.A.Dharmadhikari

                        Cr.R.No.1493/2021

                         Pankaj and another
                                  Vs.
                     State of Madhya Pradesh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the

petitioners.

Smt. Upendri Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondent/State.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               ORDER

17/08/2021

This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being

aggrieved with the order dt.22.06.2021, whereby the court

below allowed the application under Section 167 (2) of

Cr.P.C. on a condition to deposit Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees Ten

Lakh) by each of the petitioners before the trial court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

since the respondent did not file the charge sheet within the

specified period, therefore the petitioners had moved an

application under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. before the trial

court, which was allowed vide order dt.22.06.2021 but with

a condition to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) by

each of the petitioners in the shape of Fixed Deposit before

release.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that the trial court erred in directing the petitioners to

deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) each since no

condition on deposit can be made while granting default

bail/statutory bail. In support of his contention, learned

counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the

case of Apex Court in the case of Susila Aggarwal Vs. NCT

of Delhi and another reported in (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 721

to contend that in general way court cannot impose the

condition in bail matter. He further relied upon the judgment

in the case of Saravanan Vs. State Represented by the

Inspector of Police reported in (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 141 in

support of his contention.

4. In the case of Saravanan (supra) the Apex Court has

held as under :-

"Where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no charge-sheet is filed by 60th or 90th day, the accused gets an "indefeasible right" to

default bail, and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused applies for default bail and furnish bail. Therefore, the only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167 (2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no charge-sheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167 (2), Cr.P.C."

In para 11, Apex Court has held as under :-

"The circumstances while considering the regular bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, while considering the application for default bail/statutory bail. Under the circumstances, the condition imposed by the High Court to deposit Rs.8,00,000/-, while releasing the appellant on default bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside."

5. On perusal of the impugned order dt.22.06.2021, it

can be seen that the court below has granted the default

bail/statutory bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. but at the

same time, imposed a condition of deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-

(Rupees Ten Lakh) each in the shape of Fixed Deposit,

which is against the mandate of the Apex Court in the case

of Saravanan (supra).

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dt.22.06.2021

passed by the court below is modified to the extent of

deleting the condition of deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees

Ten Lakh) by each of the petitioners in the shape of Fixed

Deposit. Rest of the order dt.22.06.2021 shall remain intact.