Can Impose Condition Of Restitution Of Benefit/Property By Accused To Victim While Granting Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi clarified that imposition of any such condition (while granting bail) for such restitution of the benefit/property by the accused to the victim cannot be said to fall in the category of 'impermissible onerous condition'.

"I am of the considered view that if the accused admits or there is prima facie unimpeachable documentary material/video footage etc. regarding the accused having fraudulently/forcibly received a benefit/property from the victim and the accused fails to show his legal entitlement to the same, then even at the time of granting bail to the accused the Court can impose the condition of restitution of such benefit/property by the accused to the victim immediately or in such manner as may be agreed to by the victim," ruled the Court.

The facts in brief

The petitioner was working as a Senior Executive in Chandigarh Branch of M/s Supreme securities Limited and she along with 3 others were responsible for the day-to-day business of the branch and to maintain the account books in the due course of the business.

Allegedly, all the four accused in collusion and conspiracy with each other and with common intention embezzled approximately Rs.5.50 crores of the company.

Observations of the Court

At the outset, the Court observed that in cases of embezzlement, fraudulently receiving/forcibly taking possession of moveable/immovable property, restitution to the victim of the benefit received/property taken away by the accused is an important aspect as the accused cannot be allowed to harvest/reap/retain the fruits of his crime.

Further, the Court opined that at the time of granting bail to the accused, if there exists unimpeachable documentary material/video footage etc. regarding the accused having received any such benefit and the accused does not furnish any reasonable explanation as to his legally enforceable entitlement to the same, he could very well be directed to restore the benefit to the victim.

"For example, if there is video footage coming from authentic source as to snatching of mobile phone and vehicle of the victim by the accused and the police neglect, fails, or is unable to recover the same will it not be just and proper that the Court imposes the condition of restitution of the same by the accused to the victim at the time of grant of bail or at the initial stage after taking cognizance?" asked the Court.

The Court also remarked thus:

"Will not subjecting the complainant to wait till the payment of compensation on the final determination of guilt of the accused by final disposal of his appeal, which may take years or even decades, amounts to illegally depriving the victim of his fundamental right to life and liberty and statutory right to property without any just and proper remedy at the appropriate time?"

Therefore, the Court ruled that in appropriate cases, the Criminal Courts can, at the time of considering the question of grant of bail to the accused, direct the accused to disclose his moveable and immovable properties/assets and also to submit an undertaking that he will not fraudulently transfer the same in order to defeat any order which may be passed by the Court for restitution/payment of interim/final compensation to the victim of the offence and imposition of any such condition will not fall in the category of 'impermissible onerous condition'.

Lastly, the Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to the condition of the petitioner furnishing declaration of her immovable properties and also an undertaking that the petitioner will not transfer the same without obtaining permission from the Court.

Case title- Priya Sharma v. Union Territory of Chandigarh

Click here To Download Order

Read Order