Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 129 (CHH)

Naziya @ Nadiya Bano v. State of Chhattisgarh

2022-03-16

GOUTAM BHADURI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard. 1. Since common facts and grounds are involved in these cases, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. 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. 3. 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 directed by the order of the learned special court. 4. Learned State counsel submits that since the issue relates to chit fund as such stringent conditions have been made. 5. 4. Learned State counsel submits that since the issue relates to chit fund as such stringent conditions have been made. 5. Perused the bail order passed by the Special Court which reads as under:- **Qyr% vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k liqjk eseu] fuyksQj ckuks ,oa ukft;k ckuks] dh vksj ls ÁLrqr ;g tekur vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 439 na0Á0 lafgrk Lohdkj djrs gq, vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k esa ls ÁR;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 ÁfrHkwr ,oa 50]00]000@& ¼ipkl yk[k :i;s½] Lo;a dk ca/ki= ÁLrqr fd;s tkus ij mUgsa fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ij tekur ij fjgk fd;k tk,A 1& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k ÁR;{k ;k vÁR;{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 ÁdV u djus ds fy;s eukus ds okLrs mUgsa dksbZ /kedh] mRÁsj.k ;k opu ugha nsaxhA 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 ÁHkko MkysA 3& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k vijk/k ds vUos"k.k ds nkSjku iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk iwNs tkus okys ifjÁ'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 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 Áfrfyfi 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 5& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k blh rjg ds vijk/k dh iqujko`fRr ugha djsaxhA 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 7& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k vius LFkkbZ fuokl ds irs dk ifjorZu bl U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ds fcuk ugha djsaxhA 8& vkosfndkx.k@vfHk;qDrkx.k bl U;k;ky; dh iwoZ vuqefr ds fcuk ns’k ls ckgj ugha tk;sxhA** 6. The aforesaid condition imposing Rs.50.00 lacs personal bond and two sureties of Rs.50.00 lacs appears to be too stringent. 7. The aforesaid condition imposing Rs.50.00 lacs personal bond and two sureties of Rs.50.00 lacs appears to be too stringent. 7. 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. 8. Recently in the matter of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2020) 10 SCC 77 , 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 investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. 9. Likewise, in the case of Kunal Kumar Tiwari alias Kunal Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another (2018) 16 SCC 74 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “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. 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. 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. 10. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 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 : 15. 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…..” 11. 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.” 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the petitions stand disposed of.