Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Criminal Proceedings Are Not For Realization Of Disputed Dues, Reiterates Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
20 March 2021 7:23 AM GMT
Criminal Proceedings Are Not For Realization Of Disputed Dues, Reiterates Supreme Court
x

The Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues.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 comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari observed.In this case, the Jharkhand High...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues.

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 comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari observed.

In this case, the Jharkhand High Court had granted bail to an accused, subject inter-alia to the condition of deposit of bank guarantee of Rs.53,60,000/- in the Trial Court.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench took note of the facts of the case and observed that the disputes in the instant case are civil in nature and the complainant has also filed a civil suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement executed by the accused for sale of property in Himachal Pradesh, which is pending adjudication.  

"In our view the High Court erred in making bail conditional upon furnishing of a bank guarantee which is as good as cash deposit having regard to the condition usually imposed by banks for issuance of bank guarantee", the court said.  

The bench also referred to Shyam Singh vs. State through CBI reported in (2006) 9 SCC 169, in which 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.

"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. 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 court said while setting aside the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.53,60,000/-


Case: Manoj Kumar Sood Vs. State Of Jharkhand [ SLP (Crl) 1274/2021]
Coram: Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari
Counsel: Sr. Adv Rana Mukherjee, Adv Vishnu Sharma
Citation: LL 2021 SC 171

Click here to Read/Download Order




Next Story
Share it