Nagaraj vs. The Superintendent Of Customs (Prevention)

Facts

The petitioner, Nagaraj, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 read with Section 440(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking modification of bail conditions imposed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. The original bail order, dated 27.06.2023, in HQPOR No. 139 of 2023, required the petitioner to execute a personal bond for 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), Customs Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

Held

The High Court allowed the criminal petition, modifying the bail conditions imposed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the surety amount was excessive, especially given the petitioner's financial status. The Court referred to its own precedent in Criminal Petition No. 2196 of 2022, where a similar reduction in surety amount was ordered. The reasoning was that in similar circumstances, the Court had reduced a surety amount from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore, deeming it appropriate to reduce the surety amount due to the petitioner being financially poor, the Court modified the order. 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, including surety amounts, should be reasonable and proportionate to the financial capacity of the accused, and courts can modify such conditions based on precedent and the circumstances of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the surety amount imposed as a condition for granting bail by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, in HQPOR No. 139 of 2023, is excessive and warrants modification under Section 482 read with Section 440(2) of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the imposed surety amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (with two sureties for a like sum) is excessive, particularly considering the petitioner is financially poor. They sought a reduction to Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the same High Court in Criminal Petition No. 2196 of 2022, dated 10.03.2022, where a similar reduction was granted. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Solicitor General of India and senior standing counsel for CBIC, did not record any specific arguments against the modification of the surety amount in the judgment. The judgment states that the learned Additional Solicitor General of India was heard on behalf of the respondent.