Bail Condition Of Furnishing Bank Guarantee Is Illegal: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that the imposition of the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee by courts while granting bail is illegal.
The Court set aside the bail condition imposed by the trial court while granting bail in a case for misappropriation of funds. The trial court had directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 1 Crore within three months after release from prison, which was later modified to Rs. 50 Lakhs.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “This Court is coming across plethora of cases where the concerned Courts, while granting bail are imposing a condition that the accused should furnish a bank guarantee of any quantum. This is on the face of it illegal.”
Advocate Mohammed Tahir appeared for the petitioner, while HCGP Harish Ganapathi represented the respondent.
When the petitioner filed an application seeking modification of the order under Section 439(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., it was modified from one amount to another. After the petitioner filed another application seeking further modification before the concerned court, the same was rejected.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order before the High Court. The Bench had to determine whether a court can impose a condition of furnishing of bank guarantee of a certain amount while granting bail.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s order in Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India (2023), wherein it was observed that asking for a bank guarantee or a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee while granting bail is illegal.
“The Apex Court clearly holds that direction to furnish a bank guarantee as a condition precedent for release on bail or continuance of bail, is on the face of it illegal. Therefore, the order of the concerned Court that directs the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee, albeit, within three months after his release, is on the face of it illegal,” the Court remarked.
The Court noted that such orders imposing such conditions had generated a lot of litigation. Therefore, the Court observed that “the concerned Court shall not insist on furnishing of bank guarantee for release of the accused on grant of bail. Except this, the concerned Court would be free to impose any other legally tenable conditions.”
Consequently, the Bench set aside the impugned order of the trial court and allowed the application filed under section 439(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition.
Cause Title: Vaibhavaraj Utsav v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:26098)