Sahil Jain vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
conditions imposed vide this order. SONIA BURA 2021.03.10 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
CRM-M-4374-2021 -2-
Accused shall come present on each and every date of hearing for appearance in the Court and for trial of the case.
Accused shall not leave the juri iction of this Country without permission of the Court. He shall surrender his passport in the Court if he possesses the same and in case he do not hold any passport his undertaking in form of an affidavit that he will not get any passport issued in his name without permission of the Court.
Accused shall not commit any offence of like nature or any other offence punishable under law.
Accused shall not try to influence the witnesses of the prosecution or tamper with the evidence.
Accused shall not change his appearance during the course of trial.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not press qua the condition imposed with respect to the petitioner not changing his appearance during the trial and would restrict his submissions qua the imposition of condition to furnish a bank guarantee/ 2021.03.10 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
CRM-M-4374-2021 -3- petitioner of being involved in a scam of almost Rs.252 crores; coupled with the fact that under Section 441 Cr.PC, the discretion vested with the Court concerned to impose any condition, as it would deem fit.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the impugned order as well as all material available on record.
Economic offences constitute a class apart as compared to the SONIA BURA 2021.03.10 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
CRM-M-4374-2021 -4- other offences. Coming to the instant case in the wake of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it need not be over-emphasized that the parameters in such like cases would definitely warrant a different and stricter application of the conditions of bail. Hence, the imposition of Rs.50 lakhs as a pre-requisite condition cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be onerous much less being against the mandate of the Supreme Court in Saravanan's case(supra).
It would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Saravanan's case(supra), which are as follows: “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 60th 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 SONIA BURA 2021.03.10 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
CRM-M-4374-2021 -5- (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 chargesheet 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. 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 chargesheet is filed by 60 th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail.
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.
The case in hand is clearly distinguishable from Saravanan's case(supra) as in that case the Magistrate while extending the concession of default bail had imposed the condition to deposit an amount of Rs.8 lakhs as SONIA BURA 2021.03.10 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
CRM-M-4374-2021 -6- security out of the alleged crime money of Rs.15,67,338/-. Appellant in that case was granted bail under Section 437 Cr.PC subject to deposit of Rs.7 lakhs out of the total alleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/- and balance was to be deposited on or before 06.04.2020 as per undertaking given by the appellant's wife. On being aggrieved, instead of applying for modification of the order, the appellant in that case decided to avail relief of default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.PC. While granting the statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.PC, High Court took note of the above-mentioned undertaking given by wife of the appellant and imposed condition to deposit a sum of Rs.8 lakhs, which was part of the total amount involved in the crime in the case before learned Magistrate. However, in the case in hand, on the other hand, the Magistrate has only exercised his discretion of imposing such terms and conditions as it would deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has carefully examined the facts, circumstances and background of the case while imposing the impugned condition and the same is founded on sound judicial principles.
Resultantly, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. 03.03.2021 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia
JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable : Yes SONIA BURA 2021.03.10 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.