Keywords: Supreme Court, Bail, 420 IPC, 438 CrPC
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of a growing trend where cases under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code effectively become money recovery proceedings. It emphasised that High Courts and trial courts shouldn’t be influenced by lawyers advocating for a deposit of a disputed amount as a condition for granting anticipatory bail.[1]
The Bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed a trend in judicial proceedings where individuals sought orders under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unintentionally transforming the process into the recovery of the cheated amount. It referred to the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab[2], it was emphasized that unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) should be avoided by the courts when the legislature has not imposed such restrictions.[3]
These observations were a response to a Delhi High Court order that had set a condition for an accused party to pay Rs. 22L as a requirement for anticipatory bail.[4] The case involved the owner of a plot of land implicated in a cheating case arising from a land redevelopment agreement. Homebuyers alleged that the builder and broker failed to complete the construction of promised flats despite receiving significant payments.
The Apex Court opined that setting such conditions for bail would undermine the purpose and intent of bail. The Supreme Court cited precedents that disapprove of courts imposing onerous conditions for bail.[5] Furthermore, it explained that bail shouldn’t be perceived as attainable by depositing the alleged cheating money though it acknowledged that public money should be returned where appropriate. In private disputes, such an approach isn’t warranted.
It also ruled that the process of criminal law cannot be pressed for settling a civil dispute.[6] It held that the High Court fell in grave error in imposing such conditions and remitted the matter to the High Court with directions to reconsider the application for pre-arrest bail.
Written by-Ananya Upadhye, College name – ILS Law College, Pune, Semester- 6th an intern under Legal Vidhiya
[2] Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab
[4] Ramesh Kumar v State of NCT of Delhi
[5] Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi
[6] Bimla Tiwari v State of Bihar
