CAN THE COURT ORDER DEPOSIT OF CASH AS A CONDITION

PRECEDENT FOR GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPORV PAL

BACKGROUND:

Is it legal and proper to issue a direction for deposit of cash by a person, while exercising the
power under Section 438(1) read with 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as a
condition for granting the benefit of anticipatory bail? This question was arised in front of the
High Court of Kerala while jointly hearing four petitions filed by the same petitioner.
Anticipatory Bail is that bail which a person gets in anticipation of accused of having committed
a non-bailable offence.

In the instant case the accused has been accused of committing a non-bailable offence under
section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 420 of IPC deals with cheating. The petitioner has
been alleged for obtaining a huge amount of money from 4 persons. She promised the four
persons that she will arrange visa for their close relatives but neither she neither arranged the visa
nor returned the money.

Under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, four applications was filed by the
petitioner, for granting her the anticipatory bail, before the session court. The session court
accepted her application and granted her bail but one of the condition was to deposit Rs.25,000/-
each in four cases as a bail bond. Against this order petitioner again approached the Session
Court for the modification of the order of bail bond. The same was also dismissed by the court.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the direction for granting of bail to a
person apprehending arrest.

CURRENT ISSUE:

The Session Court order was not satisfactory for the petitioner thereafter she knocked the doors
of the High Court. The petitioner submitted to the High Court that such a huge amount for bail
bond is burdensome and unreasonable to her as she has no income with her to comply with the
conditions regarding bail bond. She also pleaded that this bond is illegal. To this submission of
the petitioner the public prosecutor replied that the petitioner has obtained a huge amount from
the four persons and the amount which is being charged from her for the bail bond is not illegal.
He said that the Section 438(2) grants power to the high court that they may include such
conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit.

To this statement Justice R. Narayan Pisharadi replied that these provisions are created to
empower the court so that they can impose appropriate conditions to avoid possibility of person
hampering the investigations of the case.
After going through a plethora of cases the High Court of Kerala observed and stated the
principle that although normally no direction for deposit of cash by the accused as a condition for
granting him bail shall be made, exceptions are there.

CONCLUSION:

After observing the orders and judgments of many cases the HC retained the order for the grant
of anticipatory bail.

The court said that according to the facts mere failure to provide visa or repay the money does
not attract cheating. Thus in this view the court the court concluded that Session Judge was not
justified in delivering its order for her anticipatory bail. The condition of bail bond was
dismissed by the court and granted time to the petitioner till 17.07.2019 to comply with the other
condition stipulated in the order of the learned Session Judge.