Neeraj Ramkumar Tiwari Through His Father Ramkumar Rameshwar Tiwari vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the imposition of a condition to deposit 50% of the alleged amount while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is unsustainable and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Saravanan Vs. State, which clearly states that upon expiry of the statutory period for investigation without filing of a chargesheet, an indefeasible right to default bail is created in favour of the accused. This right is contingent only upon the accused applying for bail and being prepared to furnish bail. The Apex Court has explicitly held that imposing any other condition, including the deposit of the alleged amount, would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail. Therefore, the condition imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed to the extent of quashing the condition.

Facts

The petitioner, Neeraj Ramkumar Tiwari, was arrested on July 29, 2020, in connection with alleged offences under the GST Act, as per a file registered with the Office of the Commissioner, Central GST, Vadodara-II. His initial bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected. Subsequently, on September 28, 2020, the petitioner applied for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, as the statutory period for filing a complaint had expired without the investigation being completed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, by an order dated October 1, 2020, granted default bail but imposed a condition that the petitioner deposit 50% of the alleged defaulted amount of Rs. 9,43,50,223/-. This petition challenges that condition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in imposing a condition of depositing 50% of the alleged defaulted amount while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)? The petitioner argued that the Court committed an error by imposing a condition while exercising its power under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, as the applicant had an indefeasible right to default bail once the statutory period for investigation expired and the applicant applied for bail. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Saravanan Vs. State, which held that the only requirement for default bail is that the accused is in jail for the stipulated period, investigation is not completed, no chargesheet is filed, and the accused applies for and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition, such as the deposit of the alleged amount, can be imposed. The respondent State, through its learned APP, initially was not represented but later submitted that in view of the Apex Court's judgment, it had no submissions to make. The respondent GST department also stated it had no submissions.