Asking to deposit ₹22 lakh fraud amount not a valid bail condition: Bombay HC

The Bombay high court (HC) recently set aside the bail condition of depositing ₹22 lakh imposed on an accused in a fraud case by an additional sessions judge on the grounds that such an onerous condition for bail was not maintainable

The Bombay high court (HC) recently set aside the bail condition of depositing ₹22 lakh imposed on an accused in a fraud case by an additional sessions judge on the grounds that such an onerous condition for bail was not maintainable. As three other accused in the fraud case had already been granted bail, the HC granted bail to the accused on grounds of parity, albeit with conditions applicable in normal bails.

HT Image

A bench of justice Sarang Kotwal, while hearing the bail application of Mohammadali Saiyyed, was informed by advocate Dr Abhinav Chandrachud that the additional sessions judge, Malegaon had granted bail to the accused on August 21, 2020 and in the operative part of the order, his client was directed to deposit ₹22 lakh before the magistrate as a condition precedent for his release on bail.

Dr Chandrachud submitted that his client had initially applied for bail with the judicial magistrate first class on the grounds that the charge sheet was not filed within the stipulated time, which was allowed by the magistrate. However, before Saiyyed could fulfil the bail conditions imposed by the magistrate of depositing ₹50,000 as personal bond and furnishing solvent sureties of like amount, the police filed a charge sheet within four days of the bail order. After this, Saiyyed approached the additional sessions judge.

According to the prosecution, Saiyyed in connivance with three others had posed as officials of a financial firm based in Gujarat and collected ₹22 lakh from a developer from Manmad as commission for processing a loan of ₹5 crore. However, after the loan was not sanctioned, a case was lodged at the behest of the developer and the four were arrested. While the three others were granted bail by the HC, Saiyyed was the last as he was considered the mastermind of the fraud.

Dr Chandrachud informed the HC that the condition precedent imposed by the additional sessions judge had been deprecated by the Supreme Court, and as his client could not arrange the amount, Saiyyed’s right to be released on bail was frustrated. In light of these submissions, he sought setting aside of the bail condition and urged the court to grant bail to Saiyyed.

The application was opposed by the complainant’s advocate who informed the court Saiyyed had two passports and could abscond if released on bail. The additional public prosecutor for the state, while submitting that though the condition of depositing ₹22 lakh for release on bail was onerous, said that Saiyyed could not be released on bail on merits.

After hearing the submissions, the bench agreed with Dr Chandrachud about the condition precedent and noted, “Obviously the condition is onerous and it is prejudging the issues between the parties without trial. This condition proceeds on the footing that the FIR is the complete truth without necessity of any further proof. This approach obviously is not permissible.”

The bench then set aside the precedent condition and granted bail to Saiyyed on the grounds that he would appear before the concerned police station on the first Monday of every month and would be present during trial and disposed of the application.