Vallikkadan Mazhood vs. The Superintendent Of Customs (Prevention)

Facts

The petitioner, Vallikkadan Mazhood, filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking modification of bail conditions imposed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. The original bail order, dated June 22, 2023, in Crl.M.P.No. 1146 of 2023, required the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each. The petitioner sought to reduce the surety amount to Rs. 25,000/- each, with two sureties. The respondent is the Superintendent of Customs (Prevention). The petitioner contended that he is financially poor.

Held

The High Court modified the bail conditions imposed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. The Court noted that in similar circumstances, it had previously reduced a surety amount from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Considering the petitioner's contention of being financially poor and the precedent set in the earlier case, the Court deemed it appropriate to reduce the surety amount. Accordingly, the order dated June 22, 2023, was modified. The petitioner is now directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. The ratio decidendi is that bail conditions, particularly surety amounts, should be reasonable and consider the financial capacity of the accused to ensure accessibility to justice, and that High Courts can exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to modify such conditions when they appear unduly onerous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the surety amount imposed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No. 1146 of 2023, is excessive and warrants modification under Section 482 Cr.P.C., considering the petitioner's financial condition? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the imposed surety amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each is excessive, especially given his stated financial poverty. He relied on a previous order of the High Court in Criminal Petition No. 2186 of 2022, where a similar reduction in surety amount was granted. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, did not record any specific arguments against the modification of the surety amount in the judgment.