Mohit Gupta vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that while the matter involves a substantial amount of tax evasion, imposing an extraordinary surety amount or any onerous condition is contrary to the spirit of the bail order and can be considered a denial of bail. The High Court found that the surety amount of Rs. 2 Crores each imposed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate was indeed exorbitant and practically impossible for the applicant to furnish. Therefore, the Court allowed the application to modify the surety conditions. The ratio decidendi is that bail conditions must be reasonable and not so onerous as to defeat the purpose of granting bail, especially when a higher court has already granted bail. The operative direction was to modify the surety amount from Rs. 2 Crores each to Rs. 50 Lacs each, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.

Facts

The applicant, Mohit Gupta, has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking modification of the bail surety conditions imposed by the In-charge Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The applicant is in jail since December 2, 2018, in connection with a case under Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017. A co-ordinate bench of the High Court had previously allowed his criminal misc. bail application on November 14, 2019. Subsequently, an application was moved for fixing surety amounts, leading to the impugned order dated November 19, 2019, which mandated sureties of Rs. 2 Crores each. The applicant argues this amount is exorbitant and effectively denies him release, as he is a businessman whose accounts have been seized.

Key Issues

1. Whether the surety amount of Rs. 2 Crores each imposed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, is an onerous condition that amounts to denial of bail, thereby violating the spirit of the bail order passed by the High Court? The petitioner argued that the imposed surety amount of Rs. 2 Crores each is excessively high and practically impossible for him to furnish, effectively denying him bail despite the High Court's earlier order. He contended that such an exorbitant condition goes against the spirit of granting bail and cited Supreme Court judgments in Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ramathal Vs. Inspector of Police. The State, through the learned AGA, opposed the prayer. The Court noted that while the matter involves a significant amount of tax evasion, imposing extraordinary surety conditions is contrary to the spirit of a bail order and can be considered a denial of bail.