1. Appeal against High Court order granting pre-arrest bail subject to a monetary deposit condition. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1009
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Udho Thakur & Anr. Etc. – Appellants
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1703-1704 OF 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 3242-3243 of 2019)
Decided on : 29-09-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Amit Kumar, Ali Mushtaq Nawazish, Naeem Ilyas, Inderjeet Singh Maini, Akhilesh Kr. Pandey, Neelam Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Kumar Anurag Singh, Pallavi Langar, Akshat Singh, Pranesh, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Amit Kumar, Ali Mushtaq Nawazish, Naeem Ilyas, Inderjeet Singh Maini, Akhilesh Kr. Pandey, Neelam Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Kumar Anurag Singh, Pallavi Langar, Akshat Singh, Pranesh, Advocates
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Pre-arrest bail – Petitions seeking relief of pre-arrest bail are not money recovery proceedings – There is no justification for adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given concession of pre-arrest bail, person concerned apprehending arrest has to make payment.
Pre-arrest bail – Petitions seeking relief of pre-arrest bail are not money recovery proceedings – There is no justification for adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given concession of pre-arrest bail, person concerned apprehending arrest has to make payment.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Pre-arrest bail – Grant of – Imposition of conditions – High Court has proceeded to grant concession of pre-arrest bail to appellants on condition of their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- and also depositing a demand draft in sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as an ad-interim victim compensation – In essence, petitions seeking relief of pre-arrest bail are not money recovery proceedings – Ordinarily, there is no justification for adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given concession of pre-arrest bail, person concerned apprehending arrest has to make payment – Condition of depositing sum of Rs.7,50,000/- for the purpose of granting relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be approved and else, order granting bail deserves to be maintained – Order impugned modified in the manner that while other directions and requirements of order, of releasing appellants on bail in event of arrest on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000/-, shall remain intact but other part of order, requiring appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, annulled. (Paras 2 to 6)
Facts of the case:
Counsel for State has frankly referred to Order dated 24.08.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench, disapproving propositions adopted in several orders by the High Court, imposing the terms of payment for the purpose of granting the relief of pre-arrest bail and remitting the matter for re-consideration with several observations.
Findings of Court:
No useful purpose would be served by sending the matter for reconsideration to the High Court and the order impugned deserves to be modified appropriately in these appeals only.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent contends the monetary deposit condition is justified based on the undisputed receipt of funds during marriage. (Para 3 )
3. Pre-arrest bail petitions are not money recovery proceedings; requiring payment as a condition for granting such relief is generally unjustified. (Para 4 )
4. Monetary deposits cannot be imposed as a condition for granting pre-arrest bail as such proceedings are not for money recovery. (Para 4 )
5. High Court order modified to annul the requirement of monetary deposit while maintaining the bail bond condition. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Can a court impose a monetary deposit as a condition for granting pre-arrest bail?
No. Pre-arrest bail petitions are not money recovery proceedings, and there is ordinarily no justification for requiring a person apprehending arrest to make a payment to obtain the concession of pre-arrest bail. (Para 4 )
7. Does the characterization of a bail deposit as victim compensation justify its imposition in pre-arrest bail proceedings?
No. Regardless of the terminology used, the court held that pre-arrest bail is not a money recovery proceeding, making the imposition of payment conditions unjustified. (Para 3 , 4 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2 . At the outset, learned counsel for the State has frankly referred to the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench, disapproving the propositions adopted in several orders by the High Court, imposing the terms of payment for the purpose of granting the relief of pre-arrest bail and remitting the matter for re-consideration with several observations.
3. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we felt inclined to pass similar order in the present matter too, where the High Court has proceeded to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the appellants on the condition of their furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and also depositing a demand draft in the sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as an ad-interim victim compensation. However, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the expression “victim compensation” as used in the impugned order may not be apt for the reason that it was not a case of recovery of victim compensation but, otherwise, the condition cannot be said to be unjustified or onerous because receiving of the said sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- by the appellants at the time of marriage has not been a fact in dispute.
4. Even if we take the submissions of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent on its face value, we are clearly of the view that in essence, the petitions seeking relief of prearrest bail are not money recovery proceedings and, ordinarily, there is no justification for adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person concerned apprehending arrest has to make payment.
5. While issuing notice in this matter on 16.04.2009, this Court has provided that the appellants shall not be arrested in connection with Complaint Case No. 1484 of 2017. Obviously, the said condition of depositing Rs.7,50,000/- stood arrested because of the stay order of this Court. This position has hitherto continued.
6. Having regard to the circumstances, in our view, the said condition of depositing a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- for the purpose of granting the relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be approved and else, the order granting bail deserves to be maintained. Hence, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter for reconsideration to the High Court and the order impugned deserves to be modified appropriately in these appeals only.
7. For what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, the order impugned is modified in the manner that while other directions and requirements of the order i.e., of releasing the appellants on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000/-, shall remain intact but the other part of the order, requiring the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-, shall stand annulled.
8. The appeals are allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of.
