The Jharkhand High Court recently set aside a bail condition imposed on accused to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.12 lakh alleged to have been cheated by him.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that inclusion of a condition for payment of money for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. "That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail," the bench said.

The petitioners' counsel argued that disputes arose regarding the solemnization of the marriage, with allegations that a certain amount was paid to the petitioners for this purpose. Furthermore, it was stated that despite efforts, the marriage did not occur, and a sum of Rs.12 Lakhs had already been refunded.

The counsel also contended that a directive was issued to pay Rs.12 Lakhs to the second opposing party, following which anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners. The petitioners, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this directive.

The Court noted that in the order issued in the Anticipatory Bail petition, it was acknowledged that a sum of Rs.12 Lakhs had already been refunded by the petitioners to the second opposing party. Nevertheless, anticipatory bail was granted under the condition that the petitioners must additionally remit the sum of Rs.12 Lakhs to the second opposing party.

The Court emphasized,

“In regular bail cases as well as in anticipatory bail cases, the orders are required to be passed considering the parameters of granting bail as well as anticipatory bail. The condition put by the learned Court appears to be not in accordance with law...The conditions to be imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. In the context of grant of bail, all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer/ Court, unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance.”

Thus, the Court set aside part of the order directing the payment of Rs.12 Lakhs while granting the petitioners the privilege of anticipatory bail without this condition.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Shivani Jaluka

Respondent: Advocates Fahad Allam, Nilesh Kumar and Sonal Sodhani

Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1905 of 2016

Case Title: Sudhir Narayan & Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 28

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement