IMPORTANT POINT
Pre-arrest bail – Process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing prayer for bail – Recovery of money is essentially within realm of civil proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Permission to file petitions for special leave is granted.

2. By way of these petitions, the petitioner/informant seeks to question the order dated 14.11.2022 as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Misc. Case No. 15125 of 2022 and 19515 of 2022, whereby the High Court took note of the offer made by the accused-respondent No. 2, of making payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- (seventy-five thousand) to the petitioner/informant and, considering such an offer and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case pertaining to offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, granted the concession of pre-arrest bail to the respondents, subject to the offered payment.

3. The allegations had been that marriage of the informant’s daughter was fixed with son of the respondent No. 2 and in the engagement rituals, amongst other things, the informant’s husband gave a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (six lakhs) in cash to the respondents. According to the petitioner-informant, thereafter, the respondents demanded further money and vehicle and, for such a demand being found inappropriate, the marriage was called off but the respondents did not return the money and the articles.

4. It appears from the submissions made that earlier, the respondents’ prayer for pre-arrest bail was declined by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Patna and then, the petition filed in the High Court bearing No. 5967 of 2019, seeking pre-arrest bail, was also dismissed on 02.04.2019. It appears further that after the report of investigation, the Trial Court found enough material to take cognizance of the offences against the accused in its order dated 14.09.2020. The respondents, thereafter, made yet another prayer for pre-arrest bail which was again declined by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge–IV, Patna on 21.12.2021. Hence, the respondents approached the High Court and their petitions were considered together and decided by the common order dated 14.11.2022, which is sought to be questioned in these petitions by the informant.

5. One of the submissions before the High Court while seeking pre-arrest bail had been that one of the accused, namely Vijaya Malviya, was granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court in its order dated 10.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. No.32384 of 2021 after considering that the money involved in the matter had been returned by a Bank Draft in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-(six lakhs), drawn in favour of the informant, which was handed over to her counsel.

6. The pre-arrest bail plea of the respondents herein was, however, opposed by the State as also by the informant, inter alia, on the ground that the processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘CrPC’) had already been issued and that the money spent in engagement ceremony had not been returned. Thereafter, an offer was made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 herein that he would make payment of another sum of Rs.75,000/-(seventy-five thousand) by way of Demand Draft within six weeks; and accepting such a submission, the High Court granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, subject to the offered payment.

7. Seeking to challenge the order so passed by the High Court, several grounds are urged in support of the present petitions, including that after issuance of process under Section 82 CrPC, prayer for pre-arrest bail ought not to have been granted; and that it had clearly been a case of illegal demand of money as also cheating of the informant.

8. Having examined the matter in its totality, we are not only inclined to dismiss these petitions and affirm the order impugned granting pre-arrest bail to the private respondents but are also inclined to delete the requirement of payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- (seventy-five thousand) to the informant.

9. We have indicated on more than one occasion that the process of criminal law, particularly in matters of grant of ba