“How Can We Start Selling Bail Like This": Supreme Court Says Onerous Bail Conditions Must Not Be Imposed Ordinarily
The Supreme Court on Wednesday(August 23) emphasised that bail with onerous conditions should only be granted under exceptional circumstances and not in ordinary matters. The bench asserted that pre-trial detention should only be employed when there is a clear threat to society or a genuine concern that the accused could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The court also referred to...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday(August 23) emphasised that bail with onerous conditions should only be granted under exceptional circumstances and not in ordinary matters. The bench asserted that pre-trial detention should only be employed when there is a clear threat to society or a genuine concern that the accused could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The court also referred to the case of Yashik Jindal v Union of India (2023) and held that a similar course needs to be adopted.
The bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing an appeal against Allahabad HC judgment which had affirmed the trial court order granting bail subject to depositing 10%(70 lakhs)of the alleged wrongful ITC amount claimed(7 crores).
Justice Bhat orally said, “It's considered god-given duty that everyone has to be locked up till the investigation is going. We need to change this. It can only be done when there's a threat to society or that he’s likely to influence or that crime is serious. Bail conditions are not restricted under this Act(GST). It's not PMLA or any other act"
"Grant of bail is subject to onerous conditions only in exceptional circumstances, not ordinarily. Therefore, the Petitioner is enlarged on bail on such terms. The petition is allowed", the bench observed in the order.
At the outset, Senior Advocate Ms. Sonia Mathur, representing the Directorate General of GST Intelligence(Respondent No.2) requested an extension of time for the submission of the counter.
However, the Supreme Court, taking into account the various opportunities already afforded and considering the petitioner's confinement over the past 9 months, deemed the request for a further extension unreasonable. Subsequently, the request was rejected.
During the proceedings, Justice Bhat addressed Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur and asked "How many times have you stood in the Supreme Court and High Court objecting to such onerous conditions? How can we start selling bail like this?"
Sr Adv Sonia Mathur responded by pointing out that similar conditions had been upheld in some previous judgments, attempting to justify the practice.
However, Justice Bhat expressed his concern about the current state of affairs, stating, "We're almost a laughing stock. It's considered a God-given duty that everyone has to be locked up till the investigation is going. We need to change this."
In its ruling, the Supreme Court firmly held that the imposition of bail conditions should be an exception rather than the rule. The court emphasized that bail with onerous conditions should only be granted under exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.
The trial court's initial order had mandated that the accused deposit 10% of the amount allegedly claimed by them, which amounted to Rs 70 lakhs—equivalent to 10% of the total claimed sum of 7 crores. This condition was upheld by the High Court.
On January 30, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a notice, thereby preventing the petitioner's arrest. The respondent was given the stipulated time to file a counter in response to the allegations.
The basis of the FIR (First Information Report) in this case centered on the alleged wrongful ITC claim, with the revenue involved amounting to a substantial 12 crores.
The court noted “ this appears to be a matter for adjudication as per GST Act through the adjudication process. But Nothing is forthcoming in this regard-not even show cause notice or result.”
Case title: Mursaleen Tyagi v State of UP
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 000898/ 2023