The Supreme Court on Friday has reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be used for realization of disputed dues.
In this case, Jharkhand High Court granted bail to the accused, the only condition imposed by the Court was to deposit a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 53,60,000 in the Trial Court.
The Bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Krushna Murari observed that 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 bench observed, “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 bail, depending on the facts and circumstance 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; 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; the larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.”
The Court relied on Shyam Singh vs State where it was held that it is open to a Court to grant or refuse bail but to say that offence has been committed even at the stage of granting bail and to direct repayment of any amount is both onerous and unwarranted.
The Court set aside the order of the High Court impugned by deleting the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 53,60,000/-.