Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Aditi W/O Rahul Soni D/O Dipakbhai Soni ... vs State Of Gujarat on 2 January, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.MA/22159/2024                                       ORDER DATED: 02/01/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR MODIFICATION ORDERS) NO.
                                                 22159 of 2024

                       ==========================================================
                          ADITI W/O RAHUL SONI D/O DIPAKBHAI SONI (ADITIBEN RANJITBHAI
                                                      SONI)
                                                      Versus
                                               STATE OF GUJARAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       DHRUV TOLIYA(9249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

                                                            Date : 02/01/2025

                                                             ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. The present application has been filed seeking modification of condition imposed upon the present applicant by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 17.10.2024. While ordering to enlarge the applicant on regular bail vide impugned condition, the present applicant was asked to deposit Rs.3,38,58,595/- in cash with the Nazir of District Court, Rajkot by the learned Special Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22159/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2025 undefined

3. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant herein had preferred an application seeking regular bail before the learned Special Court being Criminal Misc. Application No.36 of 2024 after filing of the Charge-sheet. The learned Special Court, Rajkot vide order dated 17.10.2024 was pleased to allow the application filed by the present applicant and enlarged the present applicant on regular bail. However, the learned Special Court had directed the applicant herein to deposit Rs.3,38,58,595/- before the Nazir, District Court Rajkot at the time of furnishing bail bond. He has submitted that the condition imposed by the learned Special Court is an onerous condition as per the law settled by various judgments by the Honourable Supreme Court and no such condition could have been imposed by the learned Special Court while ordering to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. The condition which has been imposed upon the applicant by the learned Special Court is amounts to rejecting the application of bail filed by the applicant. He has further submitted that the applicant herein happens to be wife the of one Dipakbhai Soni who is the main accused in the present offence and has been named in the F.I.R.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22159/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2025 undefined as an accused only because she happens to be the wife of the main accused. The applicant herein had not received any amount as alleged in the F.I.R. into her account. He has, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and delete the said condition.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of the present application inter-alia contending that the learned Special Court has imposed a condition in question having regard to the interest of depositors. She has submitted that the amount involved in the present offence is huge. The present applicant and the other co-accused had allured the first informant and the other victims for handsome returns, if they would invest their money in the stock market and they were promised return @ 22% and therefore, the first informant and other victims had invested their money with the present applicant and other co-accused. However, they were neither paid the principal amount nor any returns. The condition in question cannot be stated to be onerous at all having regard to the interest of depositors involved in the present case. She has, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22159/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2025 undefined

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.

5. The Honourable Supreme Court in it's recent judgment in the case of Girish Gandhi & Ors. vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. has observed in Para-23 thus:-

"23. From time immemorial, the principle has been that the excessive bail is no bail. To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right. As to what is excessive will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the petitioner is experiencing a genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties. Sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused, released on bail. At the same time, where the court is faced with the situation where the accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, An order which would protect the person's fundamental right under Article 21 and at the same time guarantee the presence, would be reasonable and proportionate. As to what such an order should be, will again depend on Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Sat Jan 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 21:56:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22159/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2025 undefined the facts and circumstances of each case."

5. Learned Special Court while allowing the application filed by the present applicant for bail has imposed condition upon her to deposit an amount of Rs.3,38,58,595/-. The order passed by learned Special Court indicates that the applicant had not volunteered to deposit the said amount before the learned trial Court but the Court had on its own imposed the condition upon the present applicant.

6. In the catena of the decisions, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the condition directing the accused concerned to deposit some amount or to pay some amount to the victims, cannot be imposed while ordering to enlarge the applicant on bail. If the applicant concerned shows his/her willingness to do show bena fide, that may be a ground for considering the bail application positively. The condition imposed in the present case is an onerous condition which as per settled law, is not permissible.

7. Hence, the application is allowed. The condition asking the present applicant to deposit Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Sat Jan 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 21:56:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22159/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2025 undefined an amount of Rs.3,38,58,595/- is ordered to be deleted. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J) NABILA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Sat Jan 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 21:56:25 IST 2025