ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)…………... Diary No(s).36115/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-05-2022

in CRLM No.19633/2021, 24-08-2022 in CRLM No.19633/2021 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Patna)

SANJAY SINGH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR

Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.189081/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING and IA No.189086/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA

No.189820/2022-PERMISSION

TO

FILE

ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 12-12-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Vishnu Kant, AOR

Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Mohini Kumari, Adv.

Mr. Navin Kumar Sehrawat, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The present one is yet another case where the High Court,

while granting pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving alleged

monetary dealing, has put the accused to the condition of making

payment in certain modes/installments. Time and again, this Court

has observed that criminal cases cannot be converted into money

recovery proceedings and such conditions, of granting bail on

payment, have been disapproved.

1

Digitally signed by

ARJUN BISHT

Date: 2022.12.13

18:14:31 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

In the present matter, by order dated 10.05.2022, the High

Court granted the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner

on the condition of his depositing a demand draft in the sum of Rs.

50,000/- and then, depositing the entire amount in dispute in six

months. The dispute essentially concerns the petitioner and his

sister-in-law. It is one of the submissions of the petitioner that

he is a witness in the case involving killing of his brother Mr.

Ranjan Kumar Singh and in that case, the informant (sister-in-law

of the petitioner) as also her son are accused. The case of the

petitioner is that the present FIR has been lodged by his sister-

in-law so as to deter him from conducting the said other case

relating to the killing of the petitioner’s brother.

In the case of the present nature, prima facie, we find it

difficult to endorse the approach of the High Court in granting

pre-arrest bail with the condition of petitioner depositing a sum

of Rs. 50,000/- by way of demand draft in the name of informant and

then truncating the liberty period to six months, while requiring

the petitioner to pay the entire amount as alleged by the

informant.

Delay condoned.

Issue Notice.

In the meanwhile and until further orders, operation and

effect of the impugned orders dated 10.05.2022 and 24.08.2022, to

the extent that the petitioner is required to make further payment,

shall remain stayed.

To avoid any ambiguity, we make it clear that the first part

of the impugned order dated 10.05.2022 granting the concession of

2

pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, on his furnishing personal bond

in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the like amount,

shall continue to remain in operation.

(GAGANDEEP SINGH CHADHA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)

(SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT) COURT MASTER (NSH)

3