The High Court relaxed an onerous bank guarantee condition imposed in bail proceedings. The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with sureties.
Applicant released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3434 OF 2009
Dattatraya Vithoba Patil
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
....Applicant
....Respondent
Mr.Q.M. Ashfaq for Applicant
Mr. H.J. Dedhia -APP for State
----
CORAM: V.M. KANADE J.
DATED: 16TH DECEMBER, 2009
P.C.
1.The learned APP for the State seeks time to take
instructions.
2.The Applicant was arrested in connection with an
offence punishable under sections 420, 423, 465, 467,
468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code which was
registered with the Panvel Police Station vide C.R.
No.I-256 of 2007.
3.The Applicant applied for bail before the
Sessions Court. The said application was allowed by
the Sessions Court by order dated 1.10.2007 and the
Applicant was asked to execute the P.R. Bond for a sum
of Rs.15,000/- but the further condition imposed on
him to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.
2
27,00,000/-. The Applicant challenged this order by
filing an application in this Court. However, the said
amount has been reduced to Rs.10,00,000/- from Rs.
27,00,000/- and direction was given that if the said
bank guarantee was not furnished within a period of
four weeks, the Applicant should be taken into
custody.
4.Since the Applicant could not furnish the bank
guarantee for the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, he
was taken into the police custody and since June, 2008
he is in the custody.
5.Thereafter, the Applicant preferred a fresh
application in the Sessions Court for bail which was
rejected in view of the order passed by the High
Court. The Applicant, therefore, seeks bail since he
is in the custody since June, 2008.
6.In my view, since the Appilcant is unable to
furnish the bank guarantee for the sum of Rs.
10,00,000/-, the said condition is liable to be
relaxed. In the case of Moti Ram v/s. State of M.P.
(1979) 1 SCR page 335, the Apex Court has held that if
the Court comes to a conclusion that the Applicant is
entitled to be released on bail, then unusually heavy
amount of bail should not be imposed by the Court. In
3
the present case, since the Applicant could not
furnish the bank for the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and
he is languishing in jail. The said condition is,
therefore, relaxed.
7.The Applicant be released on bail on execution
of P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount. He shall, however,
report to the concerned police station twice in a
month.
8. Application is disposed of.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a heavy amount of bank guarantee should be relaxed in bail proceedings where the applicant is already in custody and unable to furnish the same.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moti Ram v/s. State of M.P. (1979) 1 SCR page 335Relied on¶17
Dattatraya Vithoba Patil
The State of Maharashtra
V.M. KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court