Judgment · High Court

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031. STATION HOUSE OFFICER VAIKOM POLICE STATION, PIN – 686 141. SMT. SREEJA V. (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC 3000/2024 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......…............................................. Crl.M.C. No.3000 of 2024 …................................................ Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024 ORDER Petitioners challenge the order dated 29.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.557 of 2024 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kottayam to the extent it imposed a condition of deposit Rs.50,000/- as cash security while granting bail. By the impugned order, petitioners were granted statutory bail in the crime alleged against them.

Petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 6 in Crime No.84 of 2023 before the Vaikom Police Station. They are alleged to have committed the offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. While granting bail to the petitioners, who claims that they were only an employee of the company by name 'SAFE AND STRONG NIDHI LTD.', the learned Sessions Judge imposed a condition that they shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- as cash security. The said condition is assailed in this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

It is elementary that onerous conditions cannot be imposed while CRL.MC 3000/2024 3 granting bail. Generally, monetary conditions ought not to be imposed, while granting bail as held in Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi [(2023) 7 SCC 461]. Of course in exceptional cases, where public money is allegedly misappropriated, it would be open for the court to impose such a condition. However, such conditions should not be imposed where the dispute is private in nature, that too between private parties. Further in the decision in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 779], it was held that the bail court cannot act as recovery agent to realise dues of the complainant.

In the instant case, since the petitioners were only employees of the company that allegedly indulged in the offence and the dispute is between private parties, I am of the view that the condition of deposit of Rs.50,000/-as cash security for the grant of bail is not only onerous but is also unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, condition No.2 in the order dated 29.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.557 of 2024 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kottayam, is hereby deleted. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/11/04/2024 CRL.MC 3000/2024 4 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3000/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED 29/02/2024 OF THE SESSIONS COURT KOTTAYAM DIVISION, IN CB EDW TSR- 38/2023 IN CRIME NO.84/2023 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION. TRUE COPY