The High Court has saved a request by which a pre-state of outfitting bank ensure was forced on the charged by the Preliminary Court and the High Court while giving bail.
The Bench has deemed this method undesirable and unsustainable.
While deciding an appeal in Makhijani Pushpak Harish v. The State of Gujarat, the bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah has refused to depart from its position in similar cases in which the court has held that a pre-deposit condition cannot be imposed while granting bail.
BACKGROUND FACTS Under Sections 69 and 132(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (the “CGST Act”), the Superintendent (Prevention) of Central GST and Central Excise filed a complaint against Mr. Makhijani Pushpak Harish (the “Appellant”). The Appellant was taken into custody as a result of the complaint.
An application was made by the appellant in accordance with Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr. PC”) to the Trial Court for bail. The Appellant was granted bail by the Trial Court with some restrictions, one of which was a pre-deposit of Rs. 3 Crores in the
type of Bank Assurance by the Litigant.
The appellant sought relief from the High Court by challenging the pre-deposit of Rs. Bank Guarantee for three crores. The High Court changed the requirement to provide a bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 1.5 crore on January 12, 2023. The appellant appealed the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
Pre-condition of deposit of an amount or furnishing a bank guarantee has been the subject of consideration in a number of cases, wherein condition of pre-deposit has been held to be bad, according to the Bench. SUPREME COURT VERDICT Condition of pre-deposit of Bank Guarantee unsustainable
Reference was made to indistinguishable issues in Subhash Chouhan Versus Indian Union, Criminal Appeal Number 186/2023, as well as Anatbhai Ashokbhai Shah v. Province of Gujarat and Ors, Criminal
Offer No. 523/2023, in which the Court overturned High Court orders imposing a deposit requirement while granting bail to the appellants. Additionally, in Subhash Chouhan v. The Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India and the State made it clear on record that such a condition cannot be placed on bail.
As a result, the Bench ruled as follows:
“We see no reason to deviate from the view taken in the aforementioned two cases, as the facts of the present case are identical to those of the aforementioned two Criminal appeals.” We are of the considered opinion that the High Court’s precondition of providing a bank guarantee cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside for the reasons outlined in the aforementioned judgments and orders.
The other circumstances forced for award of bail by the Boss Legal Justice and maintained
by the High Court are thusly supported.”
The Bench has rejected the precondition of providing a Bank Guarantee because it was found to be unsustainable. The Trial Court’s remaining conditions have been upheld. The appellant has been granted bail by the Bench.
HARDIK SHARMA BCOM LLB 8TH SEM
0 Comments