Court eases bail conditions, reduces pre-condition amount, cites financial hardship.

The court modified the condition imposed by the Sessions Judge, reducing the pre-condition for bail from 35% to 10% of the fine amount of Rs. 75,00,000. The applicant was also required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties of the like amount. The court found the original condition to be onerous and harsh, considering the applicant's financial situation and legal precedents. The application under Section 482 CrPC was partly allowed to this extent, granting the applicant more reasonable terms for bail.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of orders dated 24.2.2020 and 24.9.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge Agra.
2. Condition of deposit imposed for granting bail.
3. Applicant's financial incapacity to meet the bail condition.
4. Legal precedents regarding the imposition of conditions for bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Orders Dated 24.2.2020 and 24.9.2020:
The application under Section 482 CrPC was filed to quash the orders dated 24.2.2020 and 24.9.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2020. The orders in question pertained to a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the applicant on the condition of depositing 35% of the fine amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.

2. Condition of Deposit Imposed for Granting Bail:
The applicant argued that the condition to deposit 35% of the fine amount as a pre-condition for bail was excessive and unreasonable. The applicant highlighted his financial incapacity to deposit such a large amount. The court considered the legal precedents and statutory provisions, particularly Section 357 and Section 389 of the CrPC, which deal with the imposition of fines and suspension of sentences pending appeal, respectively.

3. Applicant's Financial Incapacity:
The applicant's counsel submitted that the applicant was very poor and unable to deposit the huge amount imposed as a condition for bail. Additionally, it was argued that the applicant was an old man and that the entire situation was a conspiracy to grab his agricultural land. The court took into account the applicant's financial condition and the precedents set by higher courts regarding the imposition of conditions for bail.

4. Legal Precedents Regarding the Imposition of Conditions for Bail:
The court referred to several judgments, including the case of Yatendra Bharadwaj Vs. State of UP, where a similar condition of depositing a portion of the fine amount for bail was deemed onerous. The court also cited the Supreme Court's observations in Stanny Felix Pinto Vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, and Dilip S. Dhanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Company Limited and another, which emphasized that conditions for bail should not be unreasonable or arbitrary. The court underscored that the amount of compensation must be reasonable and that the capacity of the accused to pay should be considered.

Conclusion:
The court found that the condition imposed by the Sessions Judge to deposit 35% of the fine amount was onerous and harsh. In line with the legal precedents and considering the applicant's financial incapacity, the court modified the condition. The applicant was directed to deposit only 10% of the fine amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- as a pre-condition for bail, along with furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties of the like amount. The application under Section 482 CrPC was partly allowed to this extent.

Order:
The orders dated 24.2.2020 and 24.9.2020 were modified to reduce the pre-condition for bail to 10% of the fine amount, ensuring that the applicant could be released on bail under more reasonable terms.

---