Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Excessive bail in Sathya Moorthy vs The State Rep By on 24 March, 2023Matching Fragments
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to modify the condition imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur in Crl.MP.No.1030 of 2023 order dated 17.03.2023 to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II Ponneri to the credit of Crime No.194 of 2023 of Sholavaram Police Station.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was earlier arrested by the respondent police on 08.03.2023 in respect of the case registered in Crime No.194 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 353, 506(I) and 328 of IPC and Section 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. The petitioner was remanded to Judicial Custody on the same day and thereafter, the petitioner had moved an application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur under Sections 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail and the learned Judge, while granting bail to the petitioner, imposed certain conditions and one of the condition was that the petitioner has to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri to the credit of Crime No.194 of 2023. He would further submit that the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis is poor man and the petty shop which was running by the petitioner belongs to the first accused A1/Murugan who is absconding and the condition directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is excessive and onerous. Despite the bail order granted on 17.03.2023, the petitioner is unable to comply with the conditions and he is suffering incarceration and thereby, the present petition has been filed seeks to modify the said condition. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases have stated that onerous condition directing the accused to pay a huge amounts, cannot be imposed while granting bail and thereby he would seek for setting aside the condition. However, he would also submit that without prejudice to his rights and defence, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of Crime No.194 of 2023.
“...9.This Court, time and time again has held that jail is the exception and grant of bail is the rule, and in such a scenario, the conditions imposed on bail must not be unreasonable.
10. In the case of Munish Bhasin and Others Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another (2009) 4 SCC 45, the Appellant had approached the Supreme Court in Appeal against an order of the High Court that had imposed onerous conditions for grant of Anticipatory Bail in a Domestic Violence case. This Hon’ble Court in its reasoning held that harsh and excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail, the relevant observations of this Court are reproduced hereunder:
14. We are unable to appreciate the excessive conditions of bail imposed by the High Court. The fact that bail has been granted to the Appellant herein is proof enough to show that he is not to be languishing in jail during the pendency of the case.
15. While bail has been granted to the Appellant, the excessive conditions imposed have, in-fact, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail. If the Appellant had paid the required amount, it would have been a different matter. However, the fact that the Appellant was not able to pay the amount, and in default thereof is still languishing in jail, is sufficient indication that he was not able to make up the amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. As has been stated in the Sandeep Jain case (supra), the conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamounts to refusal of bail. In the present case, however, the excessive conditions herein have precisely become that, an antithesis to the grant of bail.