Team Blitz India
NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Rajesh Bindal has set aside a pre-bail condition imposed by the High Court for furnishing Bank Guarantee worth Rs 2 crore by an accused (Karandeep Singh v CBI).
The Bench has modified the condition by directing the accused to deposit a bail bond of Rs 5 lakh instead. The Bench has held as under:
“Instead of the requirement of furnishing Bank Guarantee, we direct that the appellant shall furnish a bail bond for Rs 5 lakh in each of the two orders for bail, under appeal before us. Rest of the conditions contained in the orders impugned shall remain and would have to be complied with by the appellant for being enlarged on bail”.
Bail conditions
The High Court while hearing the bail plea of Karandeep Singh (“Appellant / Accused”) had imposed certain bail conditions, including furnishing of a Bank Guarantee of Rs 2 crore for being enlarged on bail. The appellant challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court and argued that furnishing of Bank Guarantee as a pre-bail condition is onerous. Other bail conditions were not challenged.
The appellant placed reliance on the judgment in Makhijani Pushpak Harish v The State of Gujarat 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 345, wherein the Supreme Court had held that a pre-condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee for grant of bail is unsustainable.
Bail bond
The Bench ruled that in view of judgment in Makhijani Pushpak Harish v The State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2023, the appellant is not required to comply with the condition of furnishing a Bank Guarantee.
Instead, the appellant has been directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs 5 lakh. The remaining conditions imposed by the High Court have not been modified.
“Instead of the requirement of furnishing Bank Guarantee, we direct that the appellant shall furnish a bail bond for Rs 5 lakh in each of the two orders for bail, under appeal before us. Rest of the conditions contained in the orders impugned shall remain and would have to be complied with by the appellant for being enlarged on bail”, the Bench held.
