Recently while dealing with a Special Leave Petition challenging the orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court's, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner, a person with disabilities, to be granted bail without the High Court's requirement to deposit Rs. 50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs). As the petitioner was unable to fulfill this condition, they have been in custody for nearly three years."
In the said matter, it was presented to the High Court that the petitioner had been experiencing a paralytic attack for the past five years, rendering him unable to perform his daily tasks without assistance. Additionally, due to his dire financial situation, he was unable to gather the necessary funds, resulting in his confinement in jail for the past two and a half years. Feeling aggrieved by the denial of bail, he sought relief from the Supreme Court. He is accused of offenses under Sections 420, 467, and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Accordingly, a bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “…The impugned order even while granting bail imposed a condition that the 1 petitioner should deposit Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs) which he could not comply. As a consequence he has been incarcerated for the past nearly 3 years. The record discloses that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced. In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail without the condition imposed by the High Court”.
In this case, the petitioner submitted an application to the High Court u/s 439(2) in conjunction with Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking a modification of the bail conditions imposed on him. These conditions had been set in an order dated January 8, 2021, which required him to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs in cash in the trial court, among other stipulations.
Emphasizing his financial constraints, the petitioner argued that he did not possess any agricultural land and had only a simple mud-house for residential purposes.
Furthermore, he contended that his bank account held a minimal balance. The petitioner asserted that the strict condition imposed by the High Court was unattainable for him to meet, resulting in his inability to secure the benefits of bail. Therefore, he requested that the condition requiring the deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs be reconsidered and eased.
“Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence and also taking note of the fact that earlier also applicant has filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. i.e. M.Cr.C.No.41080/2021 claiming the same relief i.e. modification of the order dated 08/01/2021 to the extent it relates to the condition of depositing Rs.50 Lacs in the trial Court. The same was dismissed by an order dated 01/09/2021 by this Court. After rejecting the earlier application applicant has filed this repeated application claiming the same relief”. , the bench observed.
“It seems that the applicant has wrongly preferred this application under the provisions of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. Even for the sake of moment if it is presumed that this application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., then too such type of relief of modification of the condition imposed in the bail order cannot be granted because second petition under the same provision that too claiming the same relief is not maintainable before this Court”, the High Court had further observed in the impugned order
Accordingly, the Apex Court while allowing the special leave petition disposed of all the pending applications.
Case Title: Mohanlal Maliwad v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy