TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1966
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me to be arrested in connection with Crime No.652 of 2023 dated 27-8-2023 registered with the Satara City Police Station, State of Maharashtra for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with 34 respectively of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). 5. The appellant - herein was arrested on 17-8-2023. 6. As the Trial Court declined to release the appellant on regular bail, he went before the High Court and prayed for regular bail by way of the Bail Application No.445/2024. The High Court vide its order dated 1-4-2024 ordered release of the appellant - herein on bail, subject to deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakh only) in the Trial Court. The entire order passed by the High Court dated 1-4-2024 reads thus:- "1. Heard learned counsel Shri Kadam appearing for the applicant, learned counsel Shri Gole appearing for the Intervener and learned APP for the State. 2. Learned counsel Shri Gole appearing for the intervener and learned APP vehemently opposed the application. 3. This is an application for bail in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 34 India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TITUTE PVT LTD" will not be used. The statement is accepted. There are no criminal antecedents reported against the applicant. The applicant was arrested on 17/08/2023. The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. Further custody will only be by way of a pre-trial punishment in the facts and circumstance of the case. The applicant will face the consequences post-trial if found guilty. The applicant is in custody for more than 7 months with no possibility of the trial concluding any time soon. The investigation is complete. The charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant can be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order :- (a) The application is allowed. (b) The applicant- Gajanan Dattatray Gore in connection with C.R. No.1-652 of 2023 registered with Satara City Police Station shall be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. (c) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of 6 weeks in lieu of surety. (d) The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer of Satara City Police Station once in three months on every first ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st Class, Satara within a period of four weeks. 13. We deem it appropriate to incorporate the entire impugned order passed by the High Court as under:- "1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Gole, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. Shailesh Kharat, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, and Mrs. Veera Shinde, learned APP for State. 2. Respondent No. 1 is the Accused in Crime No. 652 of 2023, registered with the Satara City Police Station, Satara for the offences punishable under section 406, 408,420,467,468,471,504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code. Said crime is registered at the instance of the Applicant (Complainant). 3. Prosecution case is that the Applicant runs Satara Advertising Company and I-Can Training Institute, having several of its branches in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 1 was employed as a business development manager, by the Applicant. Respondent No.1 is alleged to have siphoned an amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- from the funds belonging to the Applicant. 4. Respondent No. 1 was arrested on 17.08.2023. 5. Bail Application No. 445 of 2024, filed by the Respondent No. 1 was allowed by this Court on 01.04.2024. Respondent No. 1 was r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....say and undertake that, I will not use the name of I CAN Institute. 3) I further say and undertake that, I will also not use a logo of I CAN Institute for my personal as well as business purpose. Whatever stated hereinabove is true to my knowledge, which believe to be true and correct for which I sign herein under." 6. The statements made in the affidavit-cum- undertaking are treated as an undertaking to this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant on instructions submitted that the applicant is willing to abide by the statements made in the affidavit. The statements are accepted. It is expressly made clear by learned counsel for the applicant on instructions of the applicant that in the logo of "JAMAKA" which is used by the accused, the words "ICAN TRAINING INSTITUTE PVT LTD" will not be used. The statement is accepted. There are nо criminal antecedents reported against the applicant. The applicant was arrested on 17/08/2023. The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. Further custody will only be by way of a pre-trial punishment in the facts and circumstance of the case. The applicant will face the consequences post-trial if found guilty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. She submits that the application for bail was decided solely on the basis of the offer to deposit as made by the Respondent No.1. She submits that the Respondent No.1 having offered to deposit the amount out of his own free will and after having taken benefit of such representations, Respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to resile from the undertaking. She submits that the undertaking given by the Applicant is valid. She submits that Respondent No. 1 having breached the undertaking, the bail is required to be cancelled. 12. Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 submits that the bail condition 6(i) imposed by this Court in its order dated 01.04.2024 in Bail Application No. 445 of 2024 is onerous conditions. He submits that such condition while granting bail is not tenable. In support of his submissions he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v/s. State of NCT of Delhi and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apurva Kirti Mehta V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. He further relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Biman Chatterjee v/s. Sanchita Chatterjee & anr. to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....untenance this practice. Even in this case the argument is that the counsel has no authority to offer monetary deposit, when in the modification application no such averment was made and all that was averred was that the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, as directed, be also deferred to the point after the release of the petitioner. 10. We strongly deprecate this practice. If the offer for monetary deposit had not been made, at the outset, the High Court may have considered the case on merits and may have granted or may not have granted relief to the petitioner. Today the petitioner is approbating and reprobating. We are conscious of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but we have to be equally conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process and cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the Court. In this scenario, the only conclusion possible is that both, the original bail order of 08.05.2025 and the order of modification dated 14.05.2025 granting final relief, will have to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits uninfluenced by any of the observations of this Court. 11. The situation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rat, relied on the case of Biman Chatterjee (supra) to submit that now fulfillment of the terms of compromise cannot be basis of granting or cancelling the bail. He places reliance on the paragraph No.7 of the said decision. Case in Biman Chatterjee (supra) was a proposed settlement between a couple having matrimonial discord. Bail granted to the Accused in the said crime was cancelled on the ground that the Accused was not adhering to the settlement terms. It is in this context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-7 has made the observations as under: 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise. Though in the original order granting bail there is a reference to an agreement of the parties to have a talk of compromise through the media of well wishers, there is no submission made to the court that there will be a compromise or that the appellant would take back his wife. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the courts below could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the appellant had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within 10 days from today. In the event, P.R. bond and sureties are not furnished within the said period, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to act in accordance with law. 24. Interim Application No. 4524 of 2024 is allowed in the above terms." 14. Heard Mr. A.M. Bojor Barua, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 - complainant. 15. We have noticed over a period of time that orders of regular bail and anticipatory bail are being passed by different High Courts subject to deposit of some amount. 16. We have come across cases like the one in hand where accused persons have gone to the extent of filing affidavits in the form of undertaking that they would deposit a particular amount within a particular period and then conveniently resile from such undertakings saying it is an onerous condition. 17. In some cases, perhaps the accused may abide by such undertaking, but our experience so far has been that in many cases the accused later would not abide and flout the undertaking. In many cases it would be argued on behalf of the accused that he had never made such a state....