Partly allowed

Naziya @ Nadiya Bano v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Mar 2022CRMP/463/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court observed that bail conditions imposing Rs 50 lacs personal bond and two sureties of Rs 50 lacs by Special Court were arbitrary and exceeded jurisdiction. Court modified conditions to Rs 25,000 personal bond and one surety of Rs 25,000 per petitioner on 3 petitions.

What did the court decide?

Set aside condition of Rs. 50 lacs personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 50 lacs each; modified to Rs. 25,000 personal bond with one surety of Rs. 25,000 per petitioner.

Naziya @ Nadiya Bano Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 463 of 2022

¶5

Naziya @ Nadiya Bano, Aged About 34 Years, W/o Mr. Khalid Memon,

¶6

Nilofer Bano, Aged About 33 Years, W/o Mr. Junaid Memon

¶7

Sapura Memon, Aged About 32 Years,W/o Mr. Mo. Javed Memon, All are R/o 7 Anmol Towers, 171/A/2, In Front Of Mahatma Foole School, Vaishali Nagar, P.S. Panch Pawali, Nagpur Maharashtra Civil And Revenue District- Nagpur

¶8

---- Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (Ambikapur )

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

CRMP No. 476 of 2022

¶13

Naziya @ Nadiya Bano, Aged About 34 Years, W/o Mr. Khalid Memon,

¶14

Nilofer Bano, Aged About 33 Years, W/o Mr. Junaid Memon,

¶15

Sapura Memon, Aged About 32 Years,W/o Mr. Mo. Javed Memon, All are R/o 7 Anmol Towers, 171/A/2, In Front Of Mahatma Foole School, Vaishali Nagar, P.S. Panch Pawali, Nagpur Maharashtra Civil And Revenue District- Nagpur

¶16

---- Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (Ambikapur)

¶19

---- Respondent

¶20

And

¶21

CRMP No. 477 of 2022

¶22

Sapura Memon, Aged About 33 Years, W/o Mr. Mo. Javed Memon,

¶23

Nilofer Bano, Aged About 34 Years, W/o Mr. Junaid Memon

¶24

Nadiya Bano, Aged About 35 Years, W/o Mr. Khalid Memon

¶25

All are R/o 7 Anmol Towers, 171/A/2, In Front Of Mahatma Foole School, Vaishali Nagar, P.S. Panch Pawali, Nagpur Maharashtra, Civil And Revenue District Nagpur, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra

¶26

---- Petitioners

¶27

Versus

¶28

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kotwali District Surguja (Ambikapur)

¶29

---Respondents

¶30

¶31

For petitioners – Shri Raza Ali, Advocate. For State – Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy.A.G. and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.

¶32

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order

16/03/2022

Heard.

Since common facts and grounds are involved in these cases, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

¶37

The brief facts of these cases are that the petitioners were got arrested pursuant to Crime No.125/2016, under Section 420, 34 of IPC, section 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and section 4 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors interest Act; Crime No.301/2015 under Section 420, 34 of IPC, section 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and section 4 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors interest Act and Crime No.366/2019 under Section 420, 34 of IPC, section 3, 4 & 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors interest Act.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that condition of the bail wherein two sureties of Rs. 50 lacs and personal bond of Rs.50 lacs has been ordered is too stringent which would amount to cancellation of the bail itself. He would further submit that the applicants are ready and willing to submit the details of the immovable property within a period of two months after their release. It is submitted that since the applicants are lodged in jail the said condition cannot be fulfilled, therefore condition so imposed of Rs.50 lacs may be diluted along with the fact that after their release the applicants may be allowed to furnish the property detail as

¶39

¶40

directed by the order of the learned special court.

¶41

Learned State counsel submits that since the issue relates to chit fund as such stringent conditions have been made.

¶42

Perused the bail order passed by the Special Court which reads as under:-

¶43

**Qyr% vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k liqjk eseu] fuyksQj ckuks ,oa ukft;k ckuks] dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g tekur vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 439 na0iz0 lafgrk Lohdkj djrs gq, vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k esa ls izR;sd dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; dh larqf"V ;ksX; :i;s 50]00]000@& ¼ipkl yk[k :i;s½] 50]00]000@& ¼ipkl yk[k :i;s½ dh nks l{ke izfrHkwr ,oa 50]00]000@& ¼ipkl yk[k :i;s½] Lo;a dk ca/ki= i z Lrqr fd;s tkus ij mUgsa fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ij tekur ij fjgk fd;k tk,&

¶44

1& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls ekeys ds rF;ksa ls voxr fdlh O;fDr dks iqfyl ,oa U;k;ky; ds le{k mu rF;ksa dks izdV u djus ds fy;s eukus ds okLrs mUgsa dksbZ /kedh] mRizsj.k ;k opu ugha nsaxhA

¶45

2& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k ,slk dksbZ dk;Z ;k vkpj.k ugha djsaxh tks ekeys ds fof/kiw.kZ ,oa Rofjr fopkj.k esa dksbZ foijhr izHkko MkysA

¶46

3& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k vijk/k ds vUos"k.k ds nkSjku iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk iwNs tkus okys ifjiz’uksa dk mRrj nsus gsrq tc o tSls visf{kr gks] miyC/k jgsaxh rFkk vfHk;ksxi= is’k gksus ds i’pkr~ bl U;k;ky; }kjk fu;r is’kh frfFk;ksa ij mifLFkr jgsaxhA

¶47

4& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k ,oa muds tekurnkj vius&vius vk/kkj dkMZ ftlesa vk/kkj uEcj dk Li"V mYys[k gks] dh izfrfyfi ds lkFk Lo;a ds ikliksVZ lkbZt jaxhu QksVksxzkQ Hkh bl U;k;ky; ds le{k is’k djsaxs rkfd mudk feyku dj lR;kiu fd;k tk ldsA

¶48

5& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k blh rjg ds vijk/k dh iqujko`fRr ugha djsaxhA

¶49

¶50

6& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k dfFkr dEiuh ds uke dh] vkosfndkx.k ds uke dh rFkk mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds uke dh py@vpy laifRr dh lEiw.kZ lwph bl vkns’k ds pkj lIrkg ds vUnj bl U;k;ky; ds le{k is’k djsaxhA

¶51

7& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k vius LFkkbZ fuokl ds irs dk ifjorZu bl U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ds fcuk ugha djsaxhA

¶52

8& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k bl U;k;ky; dh iwoZ vuqefr ds fcuk ns’k ls ckgj ugha tk;sxhA**

¶53

The aforesaid condition imposing Rs.50.00 lacs personal bond and two sureties of Rs.50.00 lacs appears to be too stringent.

¶54

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the directions to furnish the entire property details as has been imposed by condition No.6 of the bail order passed by the Special Court, therefore, I am not deliberating the issue in view of submission made by the petitioners. However, with respect to furnishing of Rs.50.00 lacs personal bond and two sureties of Rs.50.00 lacs each, perusal of the order would show that the impugned order exceeding the jurisdiction in imposing such arbitrary condition.

¶55

Recently in the matter of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra and Another¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the language of Section 437 (3) of the CrPC which uses the expression “any condition… otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of the Supreme Court. It laid down that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437 (3) and 439 (1) (a) of the Cr.P.C. the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the

¶56

1 (2020) 10 SCC 77

¶57

¶58

investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.

¶59

Likewise, in the case of Kunal Kumar Tiwari alias Kunal Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another² , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :

¶60

“9….clause (c) of Section 437 (3) allows Courts to impose such conditions in the interest of justice. We are aware that palpably such wordings are capable of accepting broader meaning. But such conditions cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or extend beyond the ends of the provision. The phrase ‘interest of justice’ as used under the Sub-clause (c) of Section 437(3) means "good administration of justice" or "advancing the trial process" and inclusion of broader meaning should be shunned because of purposive interpretation.

¶61

10…..from the perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing such arbitrary conditions. Some of the conditions imposed are highly onerous and are absurd. Such onerous anticipatory bail conditions are alien and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The conditions imposed appear to have no nexus with the good administration of justice or advancing the trial process, rather it is an over-zealous exercise in utter disregard to the very purpose of the criminal justice system.

¶62

Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi)³ also discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed thus at para 15 :

¶63

2 (2018) 16 SCC 74

¶64

3 (2013) 15 SCC 570

¶65

¶66

The words "any condition" used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a Court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail…..”

¶67

Having been guided by the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the condition imposed by the learned Special Court is not reasonable to accept. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail.”

¶68

In view of the above, the condition imposed with respect to personal bond of Rs.50.00 lacs and two sureties of Rs.50.00 lacs by the learned Special Court is set aside in all the matters and it is modified to the extent that on each of the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of Rs.25,000/- they shall be released on bail in accordance with the order dated 8/2/2022 passed by the learned Special Court.

¶69

It is made clear that the remaining contents and conditions of the orders dated 08.02.2022 passed by the learned Special Court shall remain unaltered.

¶70

With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the petitions

¶71

stand disposed of. Sd/-

¶72

(Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE

gouri

HEAD NOTE

Cr.M.P. No.463 of 2022

¶77

¶78

other connected matters

¶79

Any condition of bail should be effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail.

¶80

tekur iznku djus gsrq v/;kjksfir dksbZ Hkh 'krZ O;ogkfjd :i ls izHkkoh gksuh pkfg, rFkk ,slh 'krZ tekur eatwj djus okys vkns'k dks fu"Qy djus okyh ugh gksuh pkfg,A

Naziya @ Nadiya Bano v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naziya @ Nadiya Bano v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Asif Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kaushalya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Shankar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jogendra Shah Vs Rajendra Kumara Katara

Naziya @ Nadiya Bano Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sapura Memon Vs State of Chhattisgarh