2023 (7) TMI 1516 - SC - Indian Laws

Legality of imposing monetary conditions for granting anticipatory bail - Discretion of the courts in imposing conditions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - There seems to be little doubt that the Appellant had volunteered to deposit Rs. 22, 00, 000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh) without prejudice to his rights and contentions and that he had also applied for extension of time to make such deposit which was also granted; but having failed to arrange for sufficient funds he is questioning the condition imposed by the High Court for grant of pre-arrest bail. Law regarding exercise of discretion while granting a prayer for bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having been authoritatively laid down by this Court we cannot but disapprove the imposition of a condition of the nature under challenge. Assuming that there is substance in the allegation of the complainants that the Appellant (either in connivance with the builder or even in the absence of any such connivance) has cheated the complainants the investigation is yet to result in a charge-sheet being filed Under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure not to speak of the alleged offence being proved before the competent trial court in accordance with the settled procedures and the applicable laws. Sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does empower the high court or the court of sessions to impose such conditions while making a direction Under Sub-section (1) as it may think fit in the light of the facts of the particular case and such direction may include the conditions as in Clauses (i) to (iv) thereof. The version in the FIR even if taken on face value discloses payment through cheques of Rs. 17, 00, 000/- (Rupees seventeen lakh) in the name of the Appellant and not Rs. 22, 00, 000/- - the High Court ought to have realized that having regard to the nature of dispute between the parties which is predominantly civil in nature the process of criminal law cannot be pressed into service for settling a civil dispute. Even if the Appellant had undertaken to make payment which we are inclined to believe was a last ditch effort to avert losing his liberty such undertaking could not have weighed in the mind of the High Court to decide the question of grant of anticipatory bail. The tests for grant of anticipatory bail are well delineated and stand recognized by passage of time. The High Court would have been well-advised to examine whether the Appellant was to be denied anticipatory bail on his failure to satisfy any of such tests. It does seem that the submission made by counsel on behalf of the Appellant before the High Court had its own effect although it was far from being a relevant consideration for the purpose of grant of bail. It also does not appear from the materials on record that the complainants have instituted any civil suit for recovery of money allegedly paid by them to the Appellant. If at all the offence alleged against the Appellant is proved resulting in his conviction he would be bound to suffer penal consequence(s) but despite such conviction he may not be under any obligation to repay the amount allegedly received from the complainants. This too is an aspect which the High Court exercising jurisdiction Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not bear in mind - the High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the Appellant and imposing payment of Rs. 22, 00, 000/- as a condition precedent for grant of bail. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of imposing monetary conditions for granting anticipatory bail.
2. Discretion of the courts in imposing conditions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Differentiation between civil and criminal proceedings in the context of anticipatory bail.
4. The role of undertakings in influencing bail conditions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Imposing Monetary Conditions for Granting Anticipatory Bail:

The Supreme Court highlighted a concerning trend where courts impose monetary conditions for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This practice was observed in cases involving allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, where courts required accused individuals to deposit or repay money as a precondition for bail. The judgment emphasized that such conditions are not in line with the legal framework governing anticipatory bail, as they transform bail proceedings into recovery processes, which is not the intended purpose of bail provisions. The Court reiterated that bail conditions should not be onerous, unreasonable, or excessive, and should not create an impression that bail can be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated.

2. Discretion of the Courts in Imposing Conditions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

The judgment examined the discretion of courts in imposing conditions while granting anticipatory bail. It referenced several precedents, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, which emphasized that denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, and courts should avoid imposing unnecessary restrictions. The Court noted that while courts can impose necessary, just, and efficacious conditions, these must be relevant to ensuring an uninterrupted investigation and not be irrelevant or unrelated to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial. The judgment disapproved of the imposition of monetary conditions that do not facilitate the appearance of the accused or the completion of the investigation.

3. Differentiation Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings in the Context of Anticipatory Bail:

The judgment underscored the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, particularly in the context of anticipatory bail. It noted that criminal proceedings are not meant for the realization of disputed dues, which should be addressed through civil suits. The Court highlighted that the process of criminal law should not be used for settling civil disputes, and the imposition of monetary conditions for bail could lead to the misuse of criminal proceedings for money recovery. The judgment emphasized that the High Court should have considered the civil nature of the dispute between the parties and refrained from imposing a condition that effectively turned the bail proceedings into a civil recovery process.

4. The Role of Undertakings in Influencing Bail Conditions:

The judgment addressed the role of undertakings given by the accused in influencing bail conditions. It noted that the appellant had volunteered to deposit a sum of money without prejudice to his rights, which the High Court considered while imposing the bail condition. However, the Supreme Court clarified that such undertakings should not weigh in the decision to grant anticipatory bail, as they are not relevant considerations for bail. The judgment emphasized that the High Court should have focused on the established tests for granting anticipatory bail, rather than being influenced by the appellant's undertaking to deposit money.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the condition imposed by the High Court requiring the appellant to deposit a sum of money as a precondition for anticipatory bail. The matter was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration of the bail application on its merits, without imposing the impugned monetary condition. The judgment reaffirmed the principles governing the exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail and cautioned against using bail proceedings for purposes unrelated to the criminal justice process.