RAMESH KUMAR (APPELLANT) Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (RESPONDENT)
(CRIMINAL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP NO.2358 OF 2023)
(2JB, S. RAVINDRA BHAT and DIPANKAR DATTA JJ., delivered by DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)
Facts: The present appeal has been preferred against judgment of the High court by the appellant who is aggrieved by the condition [clause(e) of paragraph 9.0. of the impugned judgment and order] imposed by the High Court on grant of anticipatory bail and is seeking revocation of the same while urging that the other part of the order be maintained. Expressing his difficulty in arranging for funds to deposit Rs. 22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh), the appellant had applied before the High Court under section 482 of the Cr. PC seeking extension of time to make the requisite deposit. However, by an order, the said application was disposed of by the High Court granting extension of time by 3 days, failing which it was directed that anticipatory bail granted to the appellant shall automatically stand revoked.
Issue: Whether the impugned condition imposed by the high court on grant of anticipatory bail to accused is legally valid?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:
It was submitted that the condition imposed is onerous and is not called for having regard to the satisfaction recorded by the High Court in paragraph 8.0. that the appellant has joined investigation and that both the appellant and the builder are ready to provide any clarification/explanation for the purpose of completion of investigation. Further, it is submitted that the appellant is a victim of a conspiracy hatched by and between the builder and the complainants with the result that he is still unable to enjoy his own property which was required to be redeveloped by the builder within the time stipulated in the relevant agreement. Finally, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that having regard to the decision of this Court in Munish Bhasin vs. State (NCT of Delhi), the impugned condition imposed for grant of bail requiring deposit of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh) in the form of FDR in the Trial Court is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:
According to the learned counsel, the impugned condition was imposed because the appellant through his counsel had volunteered to keep in deposit Rs. 22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh) without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Now that the High Court had proceeded to make its order based on such undertaking and also that the appellant had applied for extension of time which was granted, it is not an appropriate case where this Court should interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
Held: The court allowed the present appeal, while holding that, “the High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the appellant and imposing payment of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh) as a condition precedent for grant of bail.” The court also directed that, “Till such time further orders are passed by the High Court, the appellant’s liberty shall not be infringed by the investigating officer. In the meanwhile, however, the appellant shall be bound to cooperate with the investigating officer, as and when he is called upon to do so.”
