Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lallu Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1 M.Cr.C.No.37236-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 22nd OF APRIL, 2022
M.Cr.C. No.37236/2021
Between:-
LALLU CHOUDHARY, S/o SHRI
RAMNARAYAN CHOUDHARY, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPTION
AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE
PELWAH, POLICE STATION & TAH.
GOHPARU, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJEEV K. SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE
STATION, KOTWALI, SHAHDOL,
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.)
....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AJAY SHUKLA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 M.Cr.C.No.37236-2021
This petition coming on for admission this day, Sheel Nagu, J., passed
the following:
ORDER
Inherent powers of this Court u/S 482 Cr.P.C. are invoked assailing
the order dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure-A/2) by which though petitioner
was granted bail u/S 439 Cr.P.C., but grant was made inter alia subject to the
condition of deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- as term deposit in a scheduled bank. It
is submitted that due to paucity of funds, petitioner has not been able to avail
the benefit of bail otherwise granted to him on merits, merely due to non-
furnishing of term deposit of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is submitted that the financial
hardship ought not to come in way of petitioner who is otherwise held entitled
to bail.
2. Petitioner has placed reliance on 2021 (2)SCC 779 (Dilip Singh Vs.
State of M.P. and others), wherein Apex Court in a case arising from this
High Court has held that condition of deposit of money as prerequisite for
grant of bail, is unlawful. For ready reference and convenience, relevant
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the said judgment are reproduced below:
"3. By imposing the condition of deposit of Rs. 41 lakhs, the
High Court has, in an application for pre-arrest bail
under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
virtually issued directions in the nature of recovery in a
civil suit.
4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court
that 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 factors to be
taken into consideration, while considering an
application for bail are the nature of accusation and the
severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and
the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the
complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial
or the likelihood of his abscondence; character
behaviour and standing of the accused; and the
circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and
larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction
to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a
recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant,
and that too, without any trial.
5. We accordingly modify the order impugned before us by
deleting the direction to deposit Rs 41 lakhs as directed
by the High Court. Needless to mention, the grant of
anticipatory bail shall be governed by the conditions in
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
3. Bail admittedly is a manifestation of right to personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Fundamental right cannot be deprived
except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Petitioner has
been found entitled to grant of bail u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. in accordance with
procedure established by law in Cr.P.C. and after taking into account the
relevant considerations for bail i.e. nature of accusation, antecedents of
petitioner, the possibility of petitioner fleeing from justice, reasonable
apprehension of tampering of evidence collected by the prosecution and
impact of release on members of general public.
4. Despite petitioner having been granted bail on merits after being
subjected to the procedure established by law is not able to avail the said
benefit due to said condition of deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- which in the
considered opinion of this Court is not only unconscionable but also amounts
to depriving petitioner of his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
5. In view of above, this Court is inclined to interfere by exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent failure of justice.
Consequently, present petition stands allowed to the following extent:
(i) The impugned order dated 03.06.2021 to the extent of rejecting the
application for deletion of condition of deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- in
the scheduled bank is set aside.
(ii) The order dated 18.10.2019 for grant of bail (Annexure-A/2) is
interfered with only to the extent of deleting the condition of
deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- in the scheduled bank. The remaining part
of the order dated 18.10.2019 shall remain intact.
(iii) Petitioner shall be allowed to avail the benefit of bail granted by
Court below by order dated 18.10.2019 as modified herein.
(SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Biswal
Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN
BISWAL
Date: 2022.04.26 10:51:36 +05'30'
