The Jharkhand High Court on Monday quashed the order imposing an amount of Rs 60.000 as a condition for grant of bail stating that the Court cannot impose ‘any condition’ as it likes while granting bail, and the terms need to be in consonance with the object and purpose of grant of bail.
The petitioner had filed a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure; to set aside the order dated 14.01.2020, passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi imposing a fine of Rs.60, 000 to be deposited in favour of the Excise Department as a condition for grant of bail.
The Petitioner faces an allegation of storing 106.2 litres of country-made and foreign liquor in his shop, an offence punishable under the Excise Act. , the shop of the petitioner was raided when information was received and the materials were seized and the petitioner was taken in custody. The Judicial Commissioner, granted bail to the petitioner on a condition for the petitioner to deposit a fine of Rs.60,000 in favour of the Excise Department through e-challan by entering into the website of the Government of Jharkhand.
The petitioner has moved to the High Court to set aside the fine imposed as a condition for grant of bail to him.
Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate for the Petitioner said that the conditions imposed while granting bail should be in consonance with the provisionsof the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the fine imposed in the present case is unsustainable as it amounts to holding the petitioner guilty without a trial.
Mr. Suraj Verma, State Counsel said that the Court is well within its jurisdiction to impose any condition for grant of bail, as the legislation has given power to the Court to impose any condition for grant of bail. The Court has therefore only exercised its jurisdiction and it cannot be said that the discretionary power has been used in an arbitrary manner. The petitioner was ready to deposit any amount of fine which is why the current application is not maintainable.
The Court observed that it is clear that the Court has power to impose any condition, it considers necessary for the purpose of grant of bail, under Cr.P.C. The question is if the term ‘any condition’ should include any condition which the Court feels including the irrelevant conditions also or should it be confined to conditions, which are relevant and have some nexus with the purpose for which a bail is granted.
The Court relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Munish Bhasin vs. State, (2009) 4 SCC 45 wherein the court had held that conditions can be imposed for to secure the presence of the accused before the Court, prevent him from fleeing the course of justice and from tampering with the restricting his movement, etc. However, theseconditions should not be so harsh, onerous or excessive, that it frustrates the object of grant of bail.
The Court observed that based on the provisions of criminal law and the excise act, it is clear that fine can be imposed only by way of punishment.
“A fine is imposed only when the guilt of the accused is proved and he is convicted of the charge framed against him. In a given situation if an accused pleads his guilt according to the provisions of law laid down, he can be punished and fine can be imposed. Thus, unless the guilt is proved and accused is convicted, no punishment can be imposed and fine which is in fact a sentence cannot be awarded.”
Acting upon the petition filed under section 482, the single bench of Justice Ananda Sen observed that the condition imposed on grant of bail irrelevant, as its against the provisions laid down in Sections 437 and 439 of the Code and is an irrelevant condition, thereby quashed the order of imposing deposition of Rs. 60,000 as a condition for grant of bail.
Justice Sen also added that the Court cannot impose ‘any condition’ as it likes while granting bail, the terms “any condition’ or ‘other condition’ have to be in consonance with the object and purpose of grant of bail.
-India Legal Bureau