Madras High Court
Mansoor Ali vs The Superintendent Of Gst And on 10 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.9357 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.9357 of 2022
Mansoor Ali,
S/o. M.Jainulabudeen ... Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent of GST and
Central Excise Hqr Preventive Unit,
GST Chennai South Commissionerate,
692, M.H.U. Complex,
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
to set aside the order and modify the condition passed in Crl.M.P.No.11
of 2022 dated 07.02.2022 by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (E.O.I Court), Egmore, Chennai and to direct the learned
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I. Court), Egmore, Chennai to
return the cash security deposited by the petitioner in R.R.No.42 of 2021
to the petitioner.
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9357 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.K.J.Saravanan
For Respondent : Mr.N.P.Kumar,
Special Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside
the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2022 on the file of learned Addl.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I Court), Egmore, Chennai and to
return cash security deposited by the petitioner in R.R. No. 42 of 2021.
2. It is stated that while releasing the petitioner in a petition filed
under Sec.167(2) of Cr.P.C., conditions were imposed to deposit the cash
security of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) and also execute a
bond of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) by depositing
documents for property worth about Rs.50 lakhs, otherwise it would be
amounting to default bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9357 of 2022
3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would content that
such onerous condition is not permissible while granting the default bail
under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C. He has also relied upon the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Saravanan Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of
Police, dated 15.10.2020 in Crl.A. Nos.681-682 of 2020. In the above
case, the Apex Court in Para 9 has held that the only requirement for
getting the default bail or statutory bail under Sec.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 60 th or 90th day and the accused
applies for default and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition of
deposit of alleged amount involved can be imposed by the court.
Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail or
statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail
under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9357 of 2022
4. Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the above
condition. It is relevant to note that the offence alleged against the
petitioner is GST evasion to the tune of Rs.11.72 crores. No doubt, he
was released on bail under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C. After the grant of bail
order, he has filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 3370 of
2022 seeking for modification of the condition imposed by the trial court.
This Court by an order dated 17.02.2022 has allowed the petition and
during submissions, it was submitted that he has prepared to deposit a
sum of Rs.5 lakhs instead of producing the documents of property worth
about Rs.50 lakhs. Accordingly, the modification was ordered. Pursuant
to the same, he has deposited a sum of Rs.5 lakhs before the trial court
and enlarged on bail. Therefore, having availed the benefit of modification
and he himself offered to deposit a cash surety of Rs.5 lakhs, the
condition cannot be said to be onerous. Though onerous condition is not
permissible while entertaining the petition under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C., the
very conduct of the petitioner offering himself to deposit a sum of Rs.5
lakhs before this Court and subsequent deposit before the trial court, this
Court is of the view that it cannot be construed as onerous condition to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9357 of 2022
interfere the order. In fact, only at the petitioner's instance, modification
order was passed. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in
this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
10.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
rpp
To
1. The Superintendent of GST and
Central Excise Hqr Preventive Unit,
GST Chennai South Commissionerate,
692, M.H.U. Complex,
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9357 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rpp
CRL.O.P.No.9357 of 2022
10.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
