Bail conditions must not be harsh or excessive, as criminal proceedings are not for the realization of disputed dues.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

This petition has been filed for quashing of the part of the order dated 24.8.2023 passed in B.P. No.1391 of 2023 passed by learned A.J.C.-III, Ranchi in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.465 of 2022 registered for the offence under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 of IPC, whereby the provisional bail has been directed to the petitioner on the condition to pay Rs.20 lacs on or before 5.10.2023 either through Demand Draft or through online transfer as per the convenience of both the sides and the balance amount to be paid on or before 22.11.2023 and the said provisional bail shall be confirmed on the payment of the amount mentioned in the bail order.

2. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the aforesaid condition, the petitioner has been released on provisional bail on 24.08.2023 and thereafter the petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court and this Court has issued notice upon the respondent no.5 by the order dated 5.10.2023 and interim protection was granted. He submits that the informant happened to be Managing Director of the company namely, SIPL entered into an agreement with the petitioner in the capacity of Managing Partner of the firm namely M/s Vinayak Construction on 18.10.2021 for the investment with regard to an agreement provided to the petitioner by the Railways and pursuant to that the informant is said to have paid a sum of Rs.55 lacs and out of that the petitioner has returned a sum of Rs.8 lacs (eight lacs). He submits that the allegation is made that Rs.47,12,908/-was not returned and for that the FIR has been registered. He submits that thereafter the petitioner was taken into custody on 21.7.2023 and the bail application was moved and the provisional bail was granted on the aforesaid conditions. He submits that the petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner by the father of the petitioner. He further submits that for the dispute in question the informant has already filed a commercial suit in the court of Commercial Court which is pending. He submits that in view of that for grant of bail such condition is very harsh and in view of that this Court may interfere and modify the said condition. He relied in the case of Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 779 wherein at paragraph no.4 it has been held as under:

4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration, while considering an application for bail are the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.

3. On this ground, he submits that the said order may kindly be modified.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that investigation is still going on. He submits that it appears that on the undertaking of the father of the petitioner such order has been passed by the learned court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that undertaking was given before the court by the