Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
U. N Gupta @ Udhav Narayan Gupta & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No 3067 of 2024 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5916 of 2024]
Decided On : 22-07-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438[Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482] – Pre-arrest bail – Grant of – Imposition of condition to deposit 25% of Rs.20,00,000/- before District Court – High Court ought to have examined question of grant of bail without being swayed by submission on behalf of appellants – Courts, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/pre-arrest bail, are not expected to act as recovery agents for realization of dues of complainant from accused – High Court ought to have independently apply its mind and arrive at a conclusion as to whether a case for grant of bail had been made out or not on settled parameters, irrespective of whatever submission had been advanced on behalf of appellants – Order of High Court set aside and Criminal Miscellaneous revived on file of High Court for being decided afresh in accordance with law. (Paras 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Order dated 29.02.2024 of High Court, impugned in this appeal, after noticing that dispute between complainant and accused is civil in nature grants pre-arrest bail to appellants on multiple conditions. One of such conditions, imposed on the basis of submission advanced before High Court by appellants, requires them to deposit 25% of Rs.20,00,000/- before District Court.
Findings of Court:
To avoid delay, parties shall appear before the Bench having jurisdiction to hear said criminal miscellaneous application. Till such time application is decided afresh, no coercive steps against the appellants shall be taken.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. The order dated 29.02.2024 of the High Court, impugned in this appeal, after noticing that the dispute between the complainant and the accused is civil in nature grants pre-arrest bail to the appellants on multiple conditions. One of such conditions, imposed on the basis of the submission advanced before the High Court by the appellants, requires them to deposit 25% of Rs.20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs only) before the District Court.
3. The direction for deposit is in the teeth of a plethora of decisions of this Court. We can profitably refer to a few of them, viz. Ramesh Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 7 SCC 461; St. George Dsouza vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1940 and Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 779.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2-complainant submits that since the High Court was invited by the appellants to impose a condition for depositing 25% of Rs.20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs only), the impugned order does not merit interference.
5. The High Court, in our considered view, ought to have examined the question of grant of bail without being swayed by the submission on behalf of the appellants. Having regard to the settled principles of law laid down in the decisions referred to above, inter alia, to the effect that the courts, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/pre-arrest bail, are not expected to act as recovery agents for realization of dues of the complainant from the accused, the High Court ought to have independently apply its mind and arrive at a conclusion as to whether a case for grant of bail had been made out or not on settled parameters, irrespective of whatever submission had been advanced on behalf of the appellants.
6. For the reasons stated above, we accept the appeal and set aside the order dated 29.02.2024. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 61407 of 2023 shall stand revived on the file of the High Court for being decided afresh in accordance with law.
7. To avoid delay, the parties shall appear before the Bench having jurisdiction to hear the said criminal miscellaneous application on 21.08.2024. Till such time the application is decided afresh, no coercive steps against the appellants shall be taken.
8. The appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms.
9. We clarify that observations made in this order shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the appellants’ claim for bail.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed.
Pre-arrest bail – Courts, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/pre-arrest bail, are not expected to act as recovery agents for realization of dues of complainant from accused.
Bail – Imposition of condition for deposit of bank guarantee as a pre-deposit for bail is not proper.
The condition of depositing money as a prerequisite for grant of bail is not only unconscionable but also amounts to depriving the petitioner of his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the ....
Onerous bail conditions requiring the accused to deposit large sums of money are disapproved by the Supreme Court and convert the criminal case into money recovery proceedings.
Imposing a financial deposit as a condition for bail is impermissible and criminal proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings.
Points of Law : If criminal proceedings are unwarranted, there can be no question of custody and in no circumstance can bail be made subject to the terms, which tantamount, in effect, to execution at....
While granting bail, the Court should not impose onerous conditions.
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 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
