LAWS(P&H)-2020-6-39

ANIL JINDAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On June 29, 2020
ANIL JINDAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under blitz before this court are two orders passed by learned Sessions Court. One granting bail and the other declining to accept the security offered by suspect/petitioner in terms of bail conditions mentioned in the bail order. Lis herein is not whether bail or jail, for that has already been taken care while granting bail, but whether an onerous condition incapable of being performed can be imposed ?

(2.) Grievance of the petitioner is that while on one hand he has been accorded the concession of bail by the court below and on the other a punishing bail condition has been imposed that renders the bail to a nullity. He has been behind bars since 05.04.2018, for the last more than 26 months. Were he to be held guilty post trial, he already has undergone pre trial custody equivalent to more than half (about 2/3rd) of the minimum sentence (36 months) qua the offences he is suspected of. Juxtaposition, were he convicted, even in appeal, his sentence would have been suspended on the ground of more than 2/3rd already undergone, during pendency of appeal, contends the petitioner. Yet, despite grant of bail, he is in preventive custody.

(3.) Petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 113 dated 04.03.2018 registered under sections 420,406,120B, 204 IPC and Section 3 of Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 (for short- 2013 Act). He seeks setting aside in part/modification of an order dated 27.03.2019 (Annexure P/4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad for regular bail in aforesaid FIR, to the extent it imposes a condition "to furnish details and documents of any immovable property/properties valuing Rs. 100 crores in lieu of personal bond with respect to all cases pending against the petitioner and other co-accused". Petitioner has also assailed a later order dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure P/9) passed by the same Court dismissing his application for accepting the bail bonds observing that the properties furnished were not unencumbered.