Madras High Court
Janshi Rani vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2022
CRL OP(MD). No.6380 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 08/04/2022
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRL OP(MD). No.6380 of 2022
1.Janshi Rani
2.Praveen : Petitioners
Vs
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Tiruchirappalli Economic Offences Wing,
Tiruchirappalli.
Crime No.2 of 2020. : Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 r/w.
Section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., to modify the condition imposed by the
learned Special Judge, (FAC) Special Court under TNOID Act Cases,
Madurai, dated 16.02.2022 in Cr.M.P.No.15 of 2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.Senguttyarasan, P.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthu Manikkam,
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
CRL OP(MD). No.6380 of 2022
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking orders to
modify the condition imposed by the learned Special Judge, (FAC)
Special Court under TNOID Act Cases, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.15 of
2022, dated 16.02.2022.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
learned Special Judge, (FAC) Special Court under TNPID Act Cases,
Madurai, has imposed some conditions, which are onerous conditions
and that too for releasing the petitioners on statutory bail.
3.The learned Special Judge has imposed the following
conditions :
(a) This petitioners are directed to be released on bail
an executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- along with two
sureties for the like sum.
(b)One of the sureties shall be a member of Local
Body.
(c) Another surety shall be the blood-relative of the
petitioners.
(d) Further, both petitioners should deposit each
Rs.2,00,000/- (Total Rs.4,00,000/-) into the credit of this
case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6380 of 2022
(e) And further, after their release, they have to appear
before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 am and 05.00 pm
until further orders.”
4. The Honourable Supreme Court in Sandeep Jain Vs. National
Capital Territory of Delhi reported in CDJ 2000 SC 025 has specifically
held that any bail condition which is in the nature of onerous condition is
against law. Again in Ramathal & Others Vs. Inspector of Police &
Another reported in CDJ 2009 SC 443, the Honourable Apex Court has
disapproved the bail condition imposed by the bail Court to deposit huge
amount.
5. Moreover, it is now settled law that when a Court considers a
statutory bail, onerous conditions cannot be imposed and the Court has to
satisfy itself, that only requirement as to whether the accused person is
prepared to furnish bail.
6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in three Judges Bench judgment in
Saravanan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police in
Crl.A.Nos.681 and 682 of 2020, dated 15.10.2020, as observed as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6380 of 2022
“9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and considering the scheme and the object and
purpose of default bail/statutory bail, we are of the opinion
that the High Court has committed a grave error in imposing
condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.
8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default
bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has
imposed such a condition taking into consideration the fact
that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular bail
application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the
appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-.
However, as observed by this Court in catena of decisions and
more particularly in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra),
where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90
days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60 th
or 90th day, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6380 of 2022
would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail
under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. As observed by this Court in the
case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) and in other decisions,
the accused is entitled to default bail/statutory bail, subject to
the eventuality occurring in Section 167, Cr.P.C., namely,
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 and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared
to furnish bail.
9.1.As observed hereinabove and even from the
impugned orders passed by the High Court, it appears that
the High Court while releasing the appellant on default
bail/statutory bail has imposed the condition to deposit Rs.
8,00,000/- taking into consideration that earlier before the
learned Magistrate and while considering the regular bail
application under Section 437 Cr.P.C., the wife of the accused
filed an affidavit to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. That cannot be a
ground to impose the condition to deposit the amount
involved, while granting default bail/statutory bail.
9.2. 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6380 of 2022
7.The above decisions are squarely applicable to the case on hand.
In the case on hand, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the Special Court has imposed onerous conditions, directing
the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and also to produce the
sureties of blood relative and a member of Local Body and to appear
before the respondent Police daily twice. Since the conditions are
onerous, this Court is inclined to modify the conditions imposed by the
learned Special Judge, (FAC) Special Court under TNOID Act Cases,
Madurai.
8.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to execute a bond for
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) each along with two sureties for
like sum and the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent
Police daily at 10.00 am until further orders and the other conditions
imposed by the learned Judge shall remain unaltered. The petitioners are
at liberty to approach the concerned Court for further relaxation or
modification.
9.In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
(K M S J)
08.04.2022
das
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6380 of 2022
Note : In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Special Judge, (FAC) Special Court
under TNOID Act Cases, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Tiruchirappalli Economic Offences Wing,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6380 of 2022
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J
das
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD). No.6380 of 2022
Date : 08/04/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
