SUMIT MEHTA versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 125 · Decided: 13-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 125 
SUMIT MEHTA 
v. 
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1436 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJANA PRAKASH 
DESAI, J.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
c 
s.438 - Power under - Purpose and scope of - FIR u/s. 
420, 467, 468 and 471 /PC - Anticipatory bail granted on the 
condition that the accused would deposit Rs. one crore in fixed 
deposit in the name of the complainant - Propriety of the 
condition - Held: Object of putting conditions while granting 
0 
bail, is to avoid possibility of the person hampering the 
investigation - Thus any condition which has no reference to 
the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be 
countenanced as permissible under law -
Therefore, 
condition of deposit for grant of anticipatory bail is untenable 
E 
- Accused, presumably an innocent person, entitled to right 
to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution - Direction to 
deposit FDR set aside - Condition imposed on the accused 
to make himself available to police not to hamper with 
investigation and not to leave India without previous 
permission of Court- Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 21. 
F 
s.438 - Anticipatory bail - Grant of - Parameters for -
Discussed. 
The question for consideration in the present appeal 
G 
was whether the condition of depositing an amount of 
Rs. 1,00,00,0001- in fixed deposit for anticipatory bail was 
sustainable in law and Whether such condition is outside 
the purview of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 
125 
H 
• 
126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The purpose of the provision in s.438 
Cr.P.C. is that a person should not be harassed or 
humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal 
8 vendetta of the complainant. The grant of bail under 
Section 438(1) is dependent on the merits and 
circumstances of a case. While granting anticipatory bail, 
the Courts are expected to consider and keep in mind the 
nature and gravity of accusation, anteeedents of the 
applicant, namely, about his previot.1$ involvement in 
C such offence and the possibility of the applicant to flee 
from justice. It is also the duty of the Court to ascertain 
. whether accusation has been made with the object of 
injuring or humiliating him by having him so arrested. The 
Courts are duty bound to impose appropriate conditions 
D as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 
[Paras 8 and 14] [132-D; 134-F·G] 
E 
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. vs. State of Punjab 
(1980) 2 sec 565: 1980 (3) SCR 383 - relied on. 
2.1. While exercising power under Section 438 
Cr.P.C., the Court is duty bound to strike a balance 
between the individual's right to personal freedom and 
the right of investigation of the police. For the same, while 
granting relief under Section 438(1 ), appropriate 
F conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2), so as 
to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. The object of 
putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility 
of the person hampering the investigation. Thus, any 
condition, which has no reference to the fairness or 
G propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be 
countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the 
discretion of the Court while imposing conditions must 
be exercised with utmost restraint. The law presumes an 
accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a 
H presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the 
SUMIT MEHTA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 
127 
fundamental ri9hts including the right to liberty A 
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Paras 12 
and 13) [134-B-F] 
2.2. The words "any condition" used in the provision 
should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on 
a Court of law to impose any condition that it chooses 
to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a 
reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible 
8 
in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense 
and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. [Para 16) 
C 
[135-C-D] 
2.3. Therefore, fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for a 
period of six months in the name of the complainant and 
to keep the FDR with the investigating officer as a 
condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail is D 
evidently onerous and unreasonable. [Paras 15] [134-H; 
135-A-B] 
Amarjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2009) 13 SCC 
769; Sheikh Ayub vs. State of M.P. (2004) 13 SCC 457; I. 
Glaskasden
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.