Rs 100-cr surety, explain 'onerous' condition: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, February 11
It’s back to learning for Faridabad Additional District and Sessions Judge. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed him to go through at least five judgments of the High Court or the Supreme Court on the issue of imposing conditions while granting bail.
He has further been asked to furnish a paper, which would be circulated among judicial officers in Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh, within a two-month deadline. These directions by Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan came in a case where an accused remained in judicial custody for almost three years as he was unable to meet the “onerous condition” of furnishing Rs 100 crore surety imposed by the Faridabad Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned order dated January 28, 2019.
Justice Sangwan directed Chandigarh Judicial Academy Director to ask the Additional Sessions Judge to explain “under what interpretation of law or relying upon which judgment of this court or Supreme Court he has put such onerous condition”. The accused had sought the setting aside of the condition imposed by the Faridabad Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail. His counsel contended that the petitioner was incapable of meeting the condition.
Taking note that the FIR in the matter was registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, and 204 of the IPC and the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, Justice Sangwan said even after the impugned order was passed granting regular bail, the petitioner continued in judicial custody. It was apparent that the very purpose of granting bail to the petitioner had been defeated due to the “onerous condition”. As such the plea was allowed to the extent of dispensing with the condition of furnishing the details/documents of immovable properties valued at Rs100 crore in lieu of personal bonds. “The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing two sureties/bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court,” Justice Sangwan concluded.
