The division Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy of the Apex Court in the case of Bimla Tiwari Vs State of Bihar & Ors held that the process of criminal law cannot be utilized for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail.
It was also noted that the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the Accused has made payment of the money involved or offers to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment. It was opined that recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case was that the marriage of the Petitioner-Informant’s Daughter was fixed with Respondent No. 2 and during the engagement rituals, the Informant’s Husband gave a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in cash to Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondents demanded further money and a vehicle, therefore, the marriage was called off but the Respondents did not return the money and the articles.
The Trial Court declined the Respondent’s prayer for pre-arrest bail. Thereafter, the petition filed in the High Court, seeking pre-arrest bail, was also dismissed. The Respondents made another prayer for pre-arrest bail which was again declined by the Court. Furthermore, the Respondents approached the High Court and the High Court granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, subject to the offered payment of Rs.75,000/-. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the pre-arrest bail could not have been granted after the issuance of process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was submitted that the present case was a case of illegal demand for money and cheating.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the process of criminal law, particularly in matters of the grant of bail, is not akin to money recovery proceedings. It was added that the process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the bail.
It was noted that the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the Accused has made payment of the money involved or offers to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment. It was opined that recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings.
It was noted that the money had been returned by the Respondents in the Court and the same was accepted by the Petitioner. The Bench remarked that the criminal proceedings in the present case were only being prosecuted as money recovery proceedings.
The decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court held that the order granting pre-arrest bail to the Respondents stood affirmed but, the condition therein, of payment of Rs.75,000/- (seventy-five thousand) by Respondent No.2, stood annulled.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Bimla Tiwari Vs State of Bihar & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Case No: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 834-835 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 50 SC
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Shaurya Sahay
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :