Shobha Kumari vs. State Of Bihar And Anr

Held

The Court held that the condition for depositing Rs. 7,00,000/- as a first installment towards outstanding dues of Rs. 39,54,984.87/- was not imposed by the learned trial court but was fixed at the request of the petitioner, who had stated her readiness to pay the amount within six months. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge a condition to which she herself had agreed and subsequently sought to characterize as onerous. The Court further noted that the petitioner was granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to this condition, but she has not deposited the amount till date and continues to enjoy the benefit of anticipatory bail despite non-compliance. This conduct reflects a disregard for the self-imposed condition. Consequently, the petition was found to be devoid of merit. The Court dismissed the petition and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the learned trial court.

Facts

The petitioner, Shobha Kumari, proprietor of M/s. Kisan Agro Enterprises, filed a petition seeking to quash an order dated 27.06.2016 passed in A.B.P. No. 295 of 2016, which arose from Shekhopur Saray P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016, registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argued that the trial court imposed an onerous condition while granting bail. The impugned order, however, reveals that the installment payment of Rs. 39,54,984.87/- was fixed at the petitioner's own request, as she stated readiness to pay the dues within six months. The petitioner was granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to depositing Rs. 7,00,000/- as the first installment, which she has allegedly not deposited till date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed for granting anticipatory bail, requiring the deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/- as a first installment towards outstanding dues of Rs. 39,54,984.87/-, is an onerous condition that warrants quashing of the order, in light of Sections 406, 409, 420, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the legal position that onerous conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments in Sumit Mehta Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), Kundan Singh Vs. Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, and Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Revenue's Contention: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. The Court noted that the installment was fixed upon the petitioner's request and she cannot challenge a condition to which she agreed.