2025 (3) TMI 551 - HC - GST

Excessive bail conditions violating constitutional rights reduced from Rs 1.10 crore to Rs 50,000 under Section 167(2) CrPC

Pawan Kumar Versus Inspector (Preventive), Central Goods and Services Tax

Punjab and Haryana HC allowed bail petition challenging exorbitant financial conditions imposed for default bail. Petitioner, accused in fraudulent ... Seeking grant of default bail - principal orchestrator of a fraudulent scheme involving fake transactions - petitioner has been in custody for the past 04 years, 01 month and 20 days - Whether the imposition of stringent financial and other onerous conditions is permissible while granting default bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. (now Section 187(3) of BNSS) and bail under Section 479 of the BNSS? HELD THAT:- Personal liberty holds a pre-eminent position in our constitutional framework, embodying the essence of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. In the present case, onerous conditions such as furnishing surety bonds of Rs. 1.10 crore from each of the two sureties as well as a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 55.00 lakhs have been imposed as a pre-requisite for grant of bail. This Court is of the considered opinion that such an approach is antithetical to the principles of justice and fairness. The primary objective of bail is to ensure the appearance of the accused at trial, and this objective can be achieved by releasing him on bail and imposing reasonable conditions. A surety bond of such exorbitant value cannot be deemed reasonable in good conscience, as it effectively places a monetary price on liberty, which is inherently invaluable. Judicial custody, it must be underscored, is preventive in nature and not punitive. Therefore, deprivation of liberty must not be used as a form of punishment but rather as a measure of last resort to secure the ends of justice. The petitioner has undergone over 04 years in custody, in spite of being eligible for default bail, as provided by Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C., merely because of his inability to meet the onerous conditions imposed by learned Court below. It is trite law that grant of bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right, which accrues to the petitioner upon failure of the investigating agency to conclude the investigation within the stipulated timeframe i.e. expiration of the prescribed period of 90 days or 60 days, as applicable. Once this right accrues, the accused is entitled to bail upon expressing readiness and furnishing the requisite bail bonds as directed by the Magistrate. Further, default bail is not only a statutory right but flows from the cherished fundamental right to life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As such, grant of default bail can reasonably be construed to be a fundamental right once the conditions as prescribed in the first proviso to Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. are fulfilled. The facts of the present case paint a distressing picture of the criminal justice system's failure to uphold the rights of undertrial prisoners. The petitioner, despite being entitled to default bail continued to languish in custody due to the imposition of excessively stringent conditions. However, what makes this case even more egregious is the fact that the petitioner was not released under Section 479 of BNSS despite having undergone detention exceeding one-third of the maximum prescribed sentence for the alleged offence - The duty cast upon the Superintendent of Jail under sub-section (3) of Section 479 of BNSS to inform the Court of an undertrial’s eligibility for bail was either overlooked or ignored, resulting in the continued incarceration of the petitioner in clear contravention of the law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons [2024 (8) TMI 1504 - SC ORDER], unequivocally held that Section 479 of BNSS applies retrospectively to all undertrial prisoners, irrespective of whether their case was registered before the enactment of the BNSS. It directed the immediate implementation of this provision to address the crisis of overcrowding in jails. Yet, the petitioner was deprived of this relief, showcasing a systemic lapse in adhering to judicial directions. The failure to release the petitioner under Section 479 BNSS, when his right to default bail itself was an indefeasible statutory and constitutional right, reflects a glaring miscarriage of justice. The right to liberty cannot be rendered illusory by administrative inaction or judicial indifference. The present case highlights the urgent need for strict adherence to statutory safeguards meant to prevent arbitrary detention, lest the criminal justice system becomes complicit in perpetuating prolonged and unjustified incarceration. Conclusion - This Court has no hesitation in holding that the conditions imposed by learned trial Court for grant of default bail do not meet the objective standards of reason and justice. The petitioner Pawan Kumar is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount - petition allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:Whether the imposition of stringent financial and other onerous conditions is permissible while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and bail under Section 479 of the BNSS.Whether the petitioner should have been released under Section 479 of the BNSS, given his detention for a period extending beyond one-third of the maximum sentence prescribed for the alleged offense.Whether the conditions imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for granting default bail were reasonable and justifiable.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Imposition of Stringent Conditions for Default BailRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework includes Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., which provides an indefeasible right to default bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period. The BNSS, specifically Section 479, also provides for release on bail under certain conditions. The judgment references precedents such as Moti Ram v. State of M.P. and Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, which emphasize reasonable bail conditions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that personal liberty is a fundamental right and that bail conditions should not be so stringent as to effectively deny bail. The Court highlighted that the primary purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence at trial, which can be achieved through reasonable conditions.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner had been in custody for over four years without trial commencement, and the conditions imposed for bail were deemed excessively stringent.Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the conditions imposed by the lower court, such as requiring surety bonds of Rs. 1.10 crore and a bank guarantee of Rs. 55 lakhs, were disproportionate and violated the principles of justice.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent argued that the conditions were justified due to the serious nature of the economic offense. However, the Court found that such conditions were not reasonable and effectively denied the petitioner his right to bail.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the imposition of such onerous conditions was impermissible and ordered the petitioner's release on more reasonable terms.Issue 2: Release Under Section 479 of the BNSSRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 479 of the BNSS provides for the release of undertrial prisoners who have been detained for a period extending up to one-third of the maximum sentence for the alleged offense, provided they are first-time offenders.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner should have been released under this provision, given his detention period and the retrospective application of Section 479 as directed by the Supreme Court.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner had been detained for over four years, which exceeded the one-third threshold of the maximum sentence for the alleged offense.Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to release under Section 479 of the BNSS, and the failure to do so was a violation of his rights.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent did not effectively counter the applicability of Section 479, and the Court emphasized the need for adherence to statutory safeguards.Conclusions: The Court ordered the petitioner's release, highlighting the systemic failure to implement Section 479 of the BNSS.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The judgment reaffirms that bail conditions must be reasonable and not so onerous as to effectively deny the right to bail. It underscores the importance of personal liberty and the need for judicial systems to adhere to statutory safeguards for undertrial prisoners.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court held that the conditions imposed for default bail were excessively stringent and ordered the petitioner's release on more reasonable terms. It also determined that the petitioner was entitled to release under Section 479 of the BNSS due to his prolonged detention.Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The imposition of unreasonable bail conditions in cases of default bail, which would almost in all cases amount to an arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty, will defeat the very purpose of this statutory and constitutional safeguard.'The Court allowed the petition, ordering the petitioner's release on bail, and directed that the matter be put before the Chief Justice to ensure compliance with directions on bail conditions.