Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. It is elementary that onerous conditions cannot be imposed as conditions while 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…
- Para 44. In the instant case, since the petitioner is apparently only an employee 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…
Judgment
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM / III ADDITIONAL PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.4 : MACT, KOTTAYAM REGHUNATH P.MENON AGED 36 YEARS S/O.SIVASANKARA MENON, SIVAKALA, CHEMBULLY ROAD, KANNIAMPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 104 BY ADV UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031 ASHI M.C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 4322 OF 2024 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.M.C.No.4322 of 2024 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024 ORDER Petitioner challenges the order dated 25.04.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1190 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, petitioner was granted statutory bail in the crime alleged against him.
Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.97 of 2023 before the Vaikom Police Station. He is 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 petitioner, who claims that he was only an employee of the company by name 'SAFE AND STRONG NIDHI LTD.', the learned Sessions Judge imposed a condition that he 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 as conditions while 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, CRL.MC NO. 4322 OF 2024 3 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 agents to realise dues of the complainant.
In the instant case, since the petitioner is apparently only an employee 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 25.04.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1190 of 2024 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kottayam is hereby deleted. The Crl.M.C. is allowed as above. RKM Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE CRL.MC NO. 4322 OF 2024 4 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4322/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1190/2024 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-V, KOTTAYAM DATED 25.04.2024
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.