IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14856-2020 Reserved on: 10.08.2020 Pronounced on: 21.08.2020 Ranjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for petitioner. Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana. (The proceedings are being conducted through video conferencing, as per instructions.) G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. Present petition, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek quashing of condition in order dated 08.04.2020 (Annexure P-2), passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby, while granting bail to petitioner, he has been directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs.50,00,000/- with one surety of like amount, to satisfaction of Learned Ilaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. Similarly, he has been directed to pay outstanding liability of Rs.1,94,78,017/- along with interest which is stated to be in respect of his firm, M/s Maa Karni Yarns GSTIN No.06AVKPS9526QIZI under Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'Act'). Certain other conditions had been also imposed regarding submitting of passport and joining investigation and abiding by all conditions envisaged under Section 438 Cr.P.C., apart from directions not to influence or threaten witness of prosecution. Counsel for petitioner, thus, has argued that said onerous conditions resulted in practically denying grant of bail to petitioner as he is not in position to pay said outstanding amount. It is 1 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -2- further submitted that there is presumption of innocence against accused and finding has to be recorded by competent Court of jurisdiction that petitioner is guilty and since complaint has been filed under relevant provisions, said condition is on wrong prior assumption that petitioner is guilty. Vide impugned order, direction has, thus, been issued for recovery of amount which is not permissible as it amounts to prejudging issue. He has relied upon judgment of Apex Court in Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi (2013) 1 SCC 570 in this regard, which pertains to provisions and conditions imposed in petition under Section 438 in FIR lodged under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, wherein while granting anticipatory bail, Delhi High Court had directed that sum of Rs.1 crore be deposited in fixed deposit in name of complainant in nationalized bank. It is, accordingly, argued in support of his contention that putting such condition for grant of bail is unwarranted. State Counsel, on other hand, has justified imposition of conditions by submitting that complaint had been filed under Act against accused which is pending before competent Court. Petitioner had already been arrested by police in FIR No.571 dated 04.06.2019 lodged at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 259 IPC. He was involved in floating bogus firms and supply of fake invoices and facilitating loss of huge amount of revenue to State Exchequer. Therefore, once amount exceeded Rs.5 crores, offence would become non-bailable under Section 132(1)(l)(i) and Sub-section (5) of Act. Apart from 2 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -3- fact that there was non-existent firm in name of M/s Maa Karni Yarns due to which tax had been evaded of Rs.1,94,78,017/-. details were also given as to how petitioner had shown purchases from fake firms along with other accused, in support of order, to submit that it would protect interest of Exchequer and prosecution. After hearing arguments advanced from both sides, this Court is of opinion that condition is onerous and is liable to be set aside, for reasons given hereunder. It is not disputed that petitioner was arrested after logding of FIR on 06.09.2019 and he is in custody since then and period of almost year has gone by. Addl.Sessions Judge, Panipat rightly came to conclusion that offences punishable when amount of input tax credit or refund of tax does not exceed Rs.500 lakhs, offences are cognizable and non-bailable. It was noticed that vide order dated 24.06.2019, there was authorization to effect his arrest. It was noticed that FIR No.571 had already been lodged against petitioner for creation of 18 fake firms and liability beyond Rs.5 crores would be subject matter of that proceedings. liability was held to be as per complaint and would be for Rs.1,94,78,017/- and therefore, conditional bail order was passed, which aspect has not been challenged by State. condition of deposit of liability under Act was based upon judgment of Calcutta High Court in Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka Vs. Union of India 2018 (362) ELT 568 passed on 09.07.2018. observations made in para No.33 of said judgment were taken into consideration whereby sum of Rs.50,00,000/- 3 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -4- was fixed as bail bond amount with condition to deposit Rs.39 crores to Government Exchequer, since it was cognizable offence and posed serious threat to economy of country. It was thus held that applicant cannot be put behind bars during entire investigation and trial in complaint. Thus, directions were issued for release on bail, subject to onerous conditions, as noticed above. Firstly, it was not brought to notice of Trial Court that said judgment imposing similar conditions stood modified by same Bench on subsequent occasions. second order was passed on 12.07.2018 whereby Learned Single Judge had come to conclusion that two applicants had evaded Rs.27 crores & Rs.12 crores and therefore, they would deposit 50% of amount as condition to obtain bail. amount of bail bonds was also reduced to Rs.10 lakhs each. On application filed for modification, in view of fact that petitioners therein had gone to Apex Court and had been given liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy, same Court had relied upon judgments of Apex Court in Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu VII 2000 (2) CCR 96, Sandeep Jain Vs. State of Delhi I (2000) SLT 368, Amarjit Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2002 (61) DRJ 67, Sheikh Ayub Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 13 SCC 457, Shyam Singh Vs. State (2006) 9 SCC 169, on 09.10.2018. Resultantly, it came to conclusion that petitioner had statutory right to be released and right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Resultantly, only personal bonds of Rs.50 lakhs each to satisfaction of Addl.CJM were directed to be 4 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -5- furnished by noticing that charge-sheet had not been filed against petitioners and no application for extension of time to complete investigation had also been filed in said case though petitioners had been arrested on 12.07.2018. Thus, they were effectively granted benefit of bail without onerous conditions, after 5 months. Unfortunately, these facts were not placed before Trial Court. As noticed above, Apex Court in Sreenivasulu Reddy (supra) has held that directing to deposit sum of Rs.35 crores out of Rs.50 crores by bail order should not be condition which would lead to effect recovery from accused. Similarly, it was noticed in Sandeep Jain's case (supra) by Apex Court that deposit of Rs.2 lakhs along with furnishing of bonds of Rs.50,000/- by 2 sureties was unreasonable. In Sheikh Ayub (supra), Rs.2,50,000/- was to be deposited which was amount misappropriated by accused which order was also set aside. Similarly, in Shyam Singh (supra) payment of Rs.1,00,000/- per month was to be made for being released on bail which was also set aside. In Amarjit Singh's case (supra), Rs.15 lakhs had to be put in form of FDR with Trial Court which was also held to be unreasonable condition. Thus, law is also settled to this effect, though in Sumit Mehta's case (supra), Apex Court has also held that power to impose such condition in cases of cheating, electricity pilferage, white-collar crimes or chit fund scams etc. was not totally excluded. It is, thus, to be noticed that where interest of State in that extent protected or not under Act is to be kept in mind. 5 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -6- power of arrest lies under Section 69 of Act whereby Commissioner has reasons to believe that person had committed any offence specified under provisions of Clauses (a), (b), (c) & (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132 which is punishable under Clauses (i) & (ii) or Sub-section (2) of said section he may authorize any officer of State Tax to arrest such person. Under Section 69(2), person has to be produced before Magistrate within 24 hours when he is arrested under Section 132 (1) & (5) and has to be informed of ground of arrest. Under Sub-section (3), he is to be admitted to bail, if he is arrested under Sub-section (1), for any offence specified under Sub-section (4) of Section 132 and in default of bail, forwarded to custody of Magistrate. Sections 69 & 132 read as under: 69. (1) Where Commissioner has reasons to believe that person has committed any offence specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) of section 132 which is punishable under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) of said section, he may, by order, authorise any officer of State tax to arrest such person. (2) Where person is arrested under sub-section (1) for offence specified under sub-section (5) of section 132, officer authorised to arrest person shall inform such person of grounds of arrest and produce him before Magistrate within twenty four hours. (3) Subject to provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), - (a) where person is arrested under sub-section (1) for any offence specified under sub-section (4) of section 132, he shall be admitted to bail or in default 6 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -7- of bail, forwarded to custody of Magistrate; (b) in case of non-cognizable and bailable offence, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner shall, for purpose of releasing arrested person on bail or otherwise, have same powers and be subject to same provisions as officer-in-charge of police station. 132. (1) Whoever commits any of following offences, namely: (a) supplies any goods or services or both without issue of any invoice, in violation of provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder, with intention to evade tax; (b) issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of provisions of this Act, or rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit or refund of tax; (c) avails input tax credit using such invoice or bill referred to in clause (b); (d) collects any amount as tax but fails to pay same to Government beyond period of three months from date on which such payment becomes due; (e) evades tax, fraudulently avails input tax credit or fraudulently obtains refund and where such offence is not covered under clauses (a) to (d); (f) falsifies or substitutes financial records or produces fake accounts or documents or furnishes any false information with intention to evade payment of tax due under this Act; (g) obstructs or prevents any officer in discharge of his duties under this Act; 7 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -8- (h) acquires possession of, or in any way concerns himself in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, supplying, purchasing or in any other manner deals with, any goods which he knows or has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under this Act or rules made thereunder; (i) receives or is in any way concerned with supply of, or in any other manner deals with any supply of services which he knows or has reasons to believe are in contravention of any provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder; (j) tampers with or destroys any material evidence or documents; (k) fails to supply any information which he is required to supply under this Act or rules made thereunder or (unless with reasonable belief, burden of proving which shall be upon him, that information supplied by him is true) supplies false information; or (l) attempts to commit, or abets commission of any of offences mentioned in clauses (a) to (k) of this section, shall be punishable (i) in cases where amount of tax evaded or amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for term which may extend to five years and with fine; (ii) in cases where amount of tax evaded or amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds two hundred lakh rupees but does not exceed five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for term which may extend to three years and with fine; (iii) in case of any other offence where amount of 8 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -9- tax evaded or amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds one hundred lakh rupees but does not exceed two hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for term which may extend to one year and with fine; (iv) in cases where he commits or abets commission of offence specified in clause (f) or clause (g) or clause (j), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. (2) Where any person convicted of offence under this section is again convicted of offence under this section, then, he shall be punishable for second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for term which may extend to five years and with fine. (3) imprisonment referred to in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection (1) and sub-section (2) shall, in absence of special and adequate reasons to contrary to be recorded in judgment of Court, be for term not less than six months. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), all offences under this Act, except offences referred to in sub-section (5) shall be non-cognizable and bailable. (5) offences specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) and punishable under clause (i) of that sub-section shall be cognizable and non-bailable. (6) person shall not be prosecuted for any offence under this section except with previous sanction of Commissioner. Explanation. For purposes of this section, term tax shall include amount of tax evaded or 9 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -10- amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or refund wrongly taken under provisions of this Act, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Central Act 12 of 2017) Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Central Act 13 of 2017) and cess levied under Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 (Central Act 14 of 2017). Sub-clause (5) would go on to show that where offence is specified in Clauses (a), (b), (c) & (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132 and is punishable under Clause (i) of that Sub-section, same shall be cognizable and non-bailable. In fact, prosecution seeks to bring it within ambit of said provisions, to detain petitioner on ground that he has evaded tax of Rs.80 crores and therefore, term of punishment may extend to 5 years in his case. Reading of above provision would also go on to show that imprisonment is provided for period ranging from 6 months upto 3 years wherein lessor offence is committed, directly correlated with quantum of financial implications upto Rs.200 lakhs, it is upto one year. If it is between Rs.200 lakhs to Rs.500 lakhs, it is upto 3 years with fine. Sub-section (5) of Section 132 further provides that for cases where input tax wrongfully filed exceeds Rs.500 lakhs only, offence is to be cognizable and non- bailable. Section 134 provides that Court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under Act, only with sanction of Commissioner and no Magistrate inferior to Magistrate of First Class shall try such offence. Section 134 reads as under: 10 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -11- 134. No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or rules made thereunder except with previous sanction of Commissioner, and no court inferior to that of Magistrate of First Class, shall try any such offence. important provision under Section 74 provides that if any tax is not being paid or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts, notice can be served upon said person charged in offence as to how he should not pay amount specified in notice along with interest payable thereon under Section 50 and penalty equivalent to tax specified in notice. Section 50 provides that maximum rate of interest is 18% or as may be notified with Government, which is to run from day tax is due. Similarly, Sub-section (8) provides that penalty equivalent to 25% of tax can be levied reads as under: 74. (1) Where it appears to proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, or any wilful- misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay amount specified in notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and penalty equivalent to tax specified in notice. (2) proper officer shall issue notice under sub- 11 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -12- section (1) at least three months prior to time limit specified in sub-section (10) for issuance of order. Xxxx xxxx xxxx (8) Where any person chargeable with tax unde sub- section (1) pays said tax along with interest payable under Section 50 and penalty equivalent to twenty five percent of such tax within thirty days of issue of notice, all proceedings in respect of said notice shall be deemed to be concluded. Similarly, under Section 83, there can be provisional attachment to protect interest of Government revenue in certain cases, which notice is issued unde Section 74. Section 83 reads as under: 83. (1) Where during pendency of any proceedings under section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74, Commissioner is of opinion that for purpose of protecting interest of Government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing attach provisionally any property, including bank account, belonging to taxable person in such manner, as may be prescribed. (2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after expiry of period of one year from date of order made under sub-section (1). Thus, in opinion of this Court, there are sufficient remedies available to State to recover amount by other modes also and to protect interest of revenue. As noticed, by putting conditional order of directing petitioner to pay amount of Rs.1,94,78,017/- would amount to recovery of amount. It is not disputed that State has already filed complaint 12 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -13- under Section 132 of Act read with Section 20 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which was also placed on record. It has been averred in same that detailed enquiry has been conducted into matter and accused along with other co-accused had made bogus and fictitious transactions. trail of banking transactions had been created wherein money in lieu of said invoices were procured from fictitious tax-payers and were deposited in bank account of fictitious tax-payers which were immediately withdrawn by fictitious tax-payers and paid back to purchasing tax-payers. perusal of complaint would go on to show that show cause notices have already been issued to petitioner also, to pay said amount along with penalties. In such circumstances, it would be clear that investigation is complete and on basis of which, complaint has been filed. record of same is with authorities and it is not that petitioner is in position to interfere with investigation or tamper with evidence and neither it is case of State also, in that context. Thus, keeping in view above factors, this Court is of opinion that since maximum punishment which can be awarded is upto 5 years and petitioner has almost undergone period of one year having been arrested on 06.09.2019. onerous conditions would thus violate Article 21 of Constitution of India as liberty of petitioner is being deprived. It is settled principle that bail is rule and jail is exception and mere seriousness of charge is not factor to 13 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -14- be taken into account while denying valuable right of liberty. basic principle being man is innocent till he is found guilty. factum of investigation being complete and enquiry having been completed and relevant documents being in possession of prosecution, petitioner thus cannot be detained during trial only on account of fact that bail order in form of recovery proceedings has been passed against him to pay outstanding worth almost Rs.2 crores along with interest. Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI 2012 (1) SCC 40, whereby accused was charged under Section 120B, 468 and Section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein case was pertaining to 3G Scam, held that bail is rule and refusal of bail is restriction of personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Since there would be delay in trial, bail was granted since investigation was already complete and charge-sheet had already been filed before Special Judge, CBI. It was noticed that punishment could go upto 7 years and therefore, order of Special Judge and Delhi High Court refusing bail, was modified, subject to various conditions. Relevant paras read as under: 13) appellants are facing trial in respect of offences under Sections 420-B, 468, 471 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Bail has been refused first by Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and subsequently, by High Court. Both courts have listed factors, on which they think, are relevant for refusing Bail applications filed by applicants as 14 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -15- seriousness of charge; nature of evidence in support of charge; likely sentence to be imposed upon conviction; possibility of interference with witnesses; objection of prosecuting authorities; possibility of absconding from justice. 14) In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from earliest times that object of bail is to secure appearance of accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that accused person will stand his trial when called upon. courts owe more than verbal respect to principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un- convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at trial but in such cases, `necessity' is operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to concept of personal liberty enshrined in Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only belief that he will tamper with witnesses if left at liberty, save in most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from question of prevention being object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of fact that any imprisonment before conviction has substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court 15 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -16- to refuse bail as mark of disapproval of former conduct whether accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to un-convicted person for purpose of giving him taste of imprisonment as lesson. 15) In instant case, as we have already noticed that "pointing finger of accusation" against appellants is `the seriousness of charge'. offences alleged are economic offences which has resulted in loss to State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is possibility of appellants tampering witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of allegation. In our view, seriousness of charge is, no doubt, one of relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not only test or factor : other factor that also requires to be taken note of is punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if former is only test, we would not be balancing Constitutional Rights but rather "recalibration of scales of justice." provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions, since jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of individual and interest of society in general. In our view, reasoning adopted by learned District Judge, which is affirmed by High Court, in our opinion, denial of whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for requirement that man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic 16 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -17- situation and would jeopardize personal liberty of individual. This Court, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan-(2005) 2 SCC 42, observed that "under criminal laws of this country, person accused of offences which are non-bailable, is liable to be detained in custody during pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 of Constitution, since same is authorized by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if Court concerned comes to conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish prima facie case against him and/or if Court is satisfied by reasons to be recorded that in spite of existence of prima facie case, there is need to release such accused on bail, where fact situations require it to do so." 16) This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is rule and committal to jail exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is restriction on personal liberty of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution. In case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308, this Court opined: "2. basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting course of justice or creating other troubles in shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and like, by petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that gravity of offence involved 17 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -18- is likely to induce petitioner to avoid course of justice and must weigh with us when considering question of jail. So also heinousness of crime. Even so, record of petitioner in this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in trial court and he was released after judgment of High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused trust placed in him by court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in sense of his being desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray confidence that court may place in him to turn up to take justice at hands of court. He is stated to be young man of 27 years with family to maintain. circumstances and social milieu do not militate against petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At same time any possibility of absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by direction that petitioner will report himself before police station at Baren once every fortnight." Learned Additional Sessions Judge though came to finding that offence would be for liability of M/s Maa Karni Yarns for Rs.1,94,78,017/- which would thus make offence bailable under Section 69(3) and Section 132(4) but inspite of that imposed onerous condition which has led to petitioner continuing to be in incarceration. said condition thus suffers from vice of unreasonability and cannot stand test of judicial scrutiny in view of law discussed above. 18 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: CRM-M-14856-2020 -19- Accordingly, present petition is accepted. condition of payment of Rs.1,94,78,017/- along with interest is set aside. bail bonds of Rs.50 lakhs with one surety are reduced to Rs.25 lakhs which shall be in form of immoveable property, to satisfaction of Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate, Panipat. order of Addl.Sessions Judge dated 08.04.2020 (Annexure P-2) is, accordingly, modified, whereas other conditions shall remain intact. 21.08.2020 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) Sailesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: Yes 19 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2021 10:12:45 ::: Ranjit Singh v. State of Haryana