Prem Chand Gupta vs. The Superintendent Of Customs

Held

The High Court allowed the criminal petition, modifying the bail order. The Court found that the petitioner's statement regarding his occupation as a carpenter and his monthly earnings of Rs. 12,000, as recorded by the Customs Department under Section 108 of the Customs Act, indicated his financial inability to meet the surety condition. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had been in jail since March 8, 2020, and despite bail being granted on April 3, 2020, he could not furnish the sureties. Therefore, to enable the petitioner to avail the granted bail, the Court reduced the surety amount. The petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail upon execution of a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 with sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge. All other conditions of the bail order remained unaltered. The ratio decidendi is that bail conditions must be reasonable and not practically impossible to fulfill, especially for individuals with limited financial means, to uphold the principle of liberty.

Facts

The petitioner, Prem Chand Gupta, a carpenter earning approximately Rs. 12,000 per month, was arrested on March 8, 2020, for allegedly smuggling 933 grams of gold from Dubai, an offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Special Judge for Economic Offences granted him bail on April 3, 2020, subject to furnishing a self-bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum. The petitioner was unable to comply with this condition due to financial constraints and remained in jail. He filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking modification of the bail order to reduce the surety amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the surety amount fixed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences is excessive and prevents the petitioner from availing bail, considering his financial status? (Question of mixed law and fact, relating to Section 437 of Cr.P.C. and principles of bail). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that as a carpenter with a modest monthly income, he is financially incapable of furnishing the surety amount of Rs. 2,00,000. He contended that this inability is causing him to languish in jail since his arrest. He relied on the principle that bail conditions should not be so onerous as to defeat the purpose of granting bail. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, the Superintendent of Customs, did not record any specific arguments against the modification of the bail order in the provided judgment. The Assistant Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the respondent.