Supreme Court Recalls 'Oppressive' Rs. 1 Crore Deposit Condition That Kept Accused in Jail 2½ Years After Bail

The applicant is accused in FIR No. 67 of 2019, Police Station Kanjurmarg, Mumbai, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (para 3). After the Bombay High Court refused bail, the Supreme Court on 03.05.2024 noted custody since 23.09.2019 with charges not yet framed, and granted bail, holding continued incarceration violative of Article 21. On his counsel's undertaking, it required Rs. 50 lakh to be deposited within four weeks of release and Rs. 50 lakh more within eight weeks after that (paras 4-7). He sought modification, pleading hardship after his business collapsed (para 8). The State said the third prosecution witness was under cross-examination; 75 remained (paras 9-10).

Looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Court held that, notwithstanding the undertaking given on the applicant's behalf, insistence on the deposit of Rs. 1 crore in two tranches of Rs. 50 lakh each would be oppressive (para 11). It found that the deposit had turned out to be an onerous condition, facilitating the applicant's continued incarceration for about 2½ years even after the Court itself had directed his release because his continued incarceration violated Article 21 (paras 7, 11). The Court therefore recalled the passage of its order of 03.05.2024 stating that release would be on his undertaking to deposit the two sums (para 12). It directed that he be released forthwith on bail on usual terms and conditions, adding only that he must co-operate with the ongoing trial (para 13). The order records the State's statement that the trial had reached the cross-examination of the third prosecution witness, with 75 witnesses still to be examined (paras 9-10). It cites no decision and does not discuss the merits of the accusation.