Deepak Singhal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the FDR deposited by the petitioner as a condition for bail should be released. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner had been granted bail with the condition of depositing the alleged tax amount, which was to be kept in FDR and subject to the final outcome of the trial. Subsequently, the petitioner was exonerated from all charges by a separate order of the High Court. Given this exoneration and the lack of objection from the State's counsel, the Court found it expedient to allow the present application. The ratio decidendi is that if a petitioner is exonerated from all charges, any security deposited as a condition of bail, which was contingent on the trial's outcome, must be returned. The operative direction was for the learned trial court to release the FDR in favor of the petitioner. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak Singhal, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 482 of the CrPC seeking the release of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) submitted as security for bail. The petitioner was implicated in Crime No. 61/2022 for alleged evasion of GST amounting to Rs. 7,11,953.61/-. The petitioner was granted bail by the High Court (Principal Seat at Jabalpur) in MCRC No. 56899/2023 on January 10, 2024, with the condition of depositing the alleged tax amount under protest, which was to be kept in FDR and subject to the final outcome of the trial. Subsequently, the petitioner was exonerated from all charges by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 21645/2024 on August 30, 2024. Despite this exoneration, the FDR had not been released, leading to the present petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FDR deposited as a condition of bail should be released in favor of the petitioner when the petitioner has been subsequently exonerated from all charges by the High Court? The petitioner argued that the FDR was deposited solely as a condition for granting bail and that since the FIR and consequential proceedings have been quashed, and the petitioner exonerated from all charges, there is no justification for retaining the FDR. The petitioner's counsel contended that the purpose of the deposit, which was to secure the final outcome of the trial, has been rendered moot by the exoneration. The State, through its counsel, conceded that if the petitioner has been exonerated from all charges, there is no need to retain the FDR in the trial court and it should be released in favor of the petitioner. No specific arguments were recorded for the State beyond this concession.