Bail order with condition to deposit fifty lakh rupees and two sureties of fifty thousand rupees. My husband is not in a position to deposit that amount consequently he is not enlarged on bail. A false criminal case has been filed by one partner of my husband’s firm. My husband is running a firm for trading in food grains. We are living in Madhya Pradesh, and our firm is situated in Sihor. My husband contracted thirty thousand ton of rice with a firm in Madhya Pradesh. He received five crores advance because there was shortage of rice in the state. My husband’s firm has supplied twenty-seven thousand ton to the firm and received another nine crores from that firm. He deposited that amount in bank and for some other purpose drawn five crores from the bank account.
This fact was not in the knowledge of his partner. When he knew about it immediately lodged first information report in the XX police station. When we came to know about the FIR immediately move anticipatory bail application. Bail is granted by the court but with the condition to deposit fifty lakh rupees in the court. Despite bail order my husband is not able to furnish sureties.
Asked from: Madhya Pradesh
The condition imposed by the court is illegal as it undermines the fundamental principle of bail. The court is not meant to act as a recovery agent. This condition is indeed unreasonable because the purpose of surety is to ensure the attendance of the accused during the trial and court proceedings, not to compensate the complainant. In Munish Bhasin v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), (2009) 4 SCC 45, the Supreme Court observed that
it is well established that, while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code, neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court is justified in imposing arbitrary or excessive conditions. Although courts can impose necessary, just, and efficacious conditions based on the facts and circumstances of a case, they cannot subject the accused to irrelevant conditions.
The conditions that can be imposed while granting anticipatory bail are outlined in sub-section (2) of Section 438 and sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code. Generally, such conditions are meant to:
- Ensure the accused’s presence before the investigating officer or court,
- Prevent the accused from evading justice,
- Prevent tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses,
- Restrict the accused’s movements in a specific area to maintain law and order.
Imposing any condition beyond these parameters exceeds the jurisdiction conferred upon the court under Section 438 of the Code. When imposing conditions under Section 438, the court must exercise caution and ensure it does not exceed its jurisdiction or impose unwarranted conditions. Conditions under Section 438 should not be harsh, excessive, or onerous, as doing so would defeat the very purpose of granting anticipatory bail.
You should file an application in the High Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita [Section 482 crpc] to quash the unreasonable condition of depositing fifty lakh rupees as bail. The High Court is likely to quash this condition, as it is unjust, unreasonable, and unfair. After quashing such a harsh condition, the High Court may impose reasonable conditions if it deems them appropriate.
Also read: Recall of cognisance order