A.MOHIDEEN Vs. SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed seeking to modify the conditions imposed in the statutory bail orders dated 19.02.2020 passed in Crl.M.P Nos.37 and 36 of 2020 in R.R.42 and 41 of 2019 respectively by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-I, Egmore and which have been later partially modified by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai by an order dated 28.02.2020 made in Crl.M.P Nos.4576 and 4575 of 2020.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were arrested in R.R No.42 of 2019 in F.No.INV/DGGI/CZU/GST/110/2019 for the offence under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) and 132(5) of the CGST Act 2017 and in R.R No.41 of 2019 in F.No.INV/DGGI/CZU/GST/110/2019 respectively for the offence under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) and 132(5) of the CGST Act 2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 21.12.2019 and since final report was not filed by the respondent police they applied for statutory bail and the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-I, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P Nos.36 and 37 of 2020 was pleased to grant statutory bail to the petitioners on 19.02.2020 with condition that the petitioners shall deposit a cash surety of Rs.5,00,000/- in deposit of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O I) Egmore, Chennai and execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for a like sum in he respective cases. Further, the learned Judge has also imposed a condition that the petitioners shall deposit title deeds of immovable properties which stands in the petitioner's name worth not less than Rs.20 lakhs before the Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even after modification, the petitioners were unable to comply with the condition and they are languishing in jail from 21.12.2019 and despite the statutory bail granted on 19.02.2020 they were unable to come out. The Court below have imposed a condition which cannot be complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the indefeasible right given under Section 167(2) cannot be extinguished by imposing any onerous conditions. The condition directing to deposit cash had indirectly defeated the indefeasible right of the petitioners and it had prevented the petitioners from coming out on bail. The petitioners are permanent resident of Chennai and the continued detention of the petitioners amounts to a pre trial conviction. He would further submit that taking into consideration the above and the Covid-19 pandemic, prays for modification of the condition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in 2019-1-LW(Crl.)387 in the case of Umadevi V. State and referred to paragraph 18 of the said judgment.