Condition For Depositing Disputed Money Cannot Be Imposed On Accused While Granting Bail: Delhi High Court

Granting bail to an accused in a case of cheating, the Delhi High Court has said that a condition for depositing disputed money cannot be imposed on an accused while granting him bail.

Noting that the conditions that can be imposed while granting bail are mentioned under section 437(3) of CrPC, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said the provision nowhere suggests that a condition for deposit of disputed money can also be imposed while granting regular bail.

"As to whether an accused is settling the dispute by way of any compensation or not cannot be considered to be the valid reason for accepting or denying the bail to an accused," the court observed in an order passed on September 27.

The court made the observations while granting regular bail to a man in a case registered under section 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was denied regular bail by trial court on May 23.

As per the complaint, the petitioner accused was engaged by a travel agency for getting air tickets prepared for its clients. Allegedly, Rs.12 lakhs were given to him. Some of the air tickets sent by the petitioner, through email of a co accused, were found to be fake, according to the complaint.

After being granted anticipatory bail in December 2018, the petitioner had paid Rs.1 lakh to the complainant and a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs was also paid subsequently. The anticipatory bail was cancelled in May 2015 on account of non-payment of the remaining money.

The petitioner was then arrested in February 2020 and was sent to judicial custody.

However, he was released on interim bail in April 2020 in compliance of the directions of the High Powered Committee, which was constituted on orders of the Supreme Court to decongest jails in wake of the COVID-19 infection.

In March 2021, he was granted regular bail with a condition that he should settle the matter with the complainant. However, since no settlement was done, his bail was cancelled.

During the second COVID-19 wave, the petitioner was again released on interim bail in May 2021 as per the decision of the High Powered Committee. During his second release, the petitioner appeared before the trial court and sought regular bail. However, he was denied bail vide impugned order after he failed to give a specific reply to the court's query as to whether he was willing to compensate the complainant.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had been in judicial custody for over 100 days in three spans, adding that he was falsely implicated in the matter. It was argued that since the police after investigation had filed the chargesheet, his further custodial interrogation was not required.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the petitioner had remain non cooperative and that there was a chance that he might abscond. It was however submitted that the probe was over and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required.

While granting bail to the accused, the court said the prayer for grant of bail will have to be considered on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record.

"The conditions which possibly can be imposed, while granting bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. A perusal of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C., no where suggest that a condition for deposit of disputed money can also be imposed while granting bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C," the court observed.

Therefore, bail was granted subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Title: GAGANDEEP SINGH ADHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 955

Click Here To Read Order