2021 (1) TMI 1297 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - disputes civil in nature - by imposing the condition of deposit of ₹ 41 lakhs, the High Court has, in an application for pre-arrest bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 virtually issued directions in the nature of recovery in a civil suit - HELD THAT - It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for realization 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 behavior and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar of 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. The order impugned is modified by deleting the direction to deposit ₹ 41 lakhs as directed by the High Court - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail subject to deposit of money in a civil dispute.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of granting anticipatory bail subject to the deposit of a specific amount in a civil dispute. The High Court had granted anticipatory bail to the Appellant on the condition of depositing a substantial sum of money, which was challenged in the appeal. The Court noted that the disputes in the case were civil in nature, involving an agreement for the purchase of agricultural land. The complainant alleged non-execution of the sale deed despite payment of the agreed amount. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings are not meant for the realization of disputed dues. It highlighted that the decision to grant anticipatory bail should consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, possibility of tampering with witnesses, and the accused's behavior. The Court clarified that a criminal court should not act as a recovery agent without a trial.

The Supreme Court, therefore, modified the High Court's order by removing the direction to deposit the specified amount. The Court emphasized that the grant of anticipatory bail should adhere to the conditions outlined in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By doing so, the Court rectified the High Court's approach of issuing directions akin to recovery in a civil suit through the grant of anticipatory bail. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with any pending applications also being resolved.