Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: June 26, 2022 at 16:31 IST
In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court held that courts cannot impose any conditions when exercising their power under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that amounts to exercising powers under a different enactment.
Any such condition imposed will be beyond the jurisdiction of the court’s, according to the Bench of Justice Niral R. Mehta.
The petitioner in this case was charged under sections 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act of 2003 (the 2003 Act), 406, 420, 114, and 120(B) of the IPC, and a FIR was filed against him. He was then arrested.
The Petitioner submitted an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bail, and the trial granted it with the following two conditions:
The Petitioner must submit a Rs 33,06,695 bank guarantee within two weeks of release.
The bank guarantee will be forfeited in favour of the State if the IO is unable to recover the money.
The major issue before the court was whether it was allowed to impose conditions when exercising its power under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under a different enactment which in this case is the 2003 Act.
The Court perused the 2003 Act and observed that it has a built-in mechanism that allows for the competent authorities to take action against a financial establishment, following which the designated court can order asset attachment, realise money from assets, or cancel the attachment order.
In this context, the Court made it clear that the designated court has the ultimate power of attachment under the 2003 Act and that it will exclusively have the jurisdiction to pass any orders under section 10(6) of the 2003 Act.
The Court then proceeded to delete the conditions regarding to the bank guarantee and forfeiture of the same in case of default after ruling that the conditions set by the trial court under Section 439 CrPC are incorrect.
