Shocking To See Trial Court Putting Bail Conditions Partaking Nature Of Recovery: SC Modifies Order Directing Accused To Pay 20% Of Cheque Amount As Bail Condition In NI Act Case
|The Supreme Court recently observed that it was shocking to see trial courts putting conditions partaking the nature of recovery, despite the Court, earlier, depreciating the practice of reducing criminal law into money recovery proceedings.
The Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Patna High Court refusing to quash the order whereby she was directed to pay 20% of the total amount involved in a Section 138 case to the complainant as a condition for granting bail to her in the case.
The Bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “It is shocking that despite the decisions of this Court deprecating the practice of putting conditions partaking the nature of recovery, such orders are being issued. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to our attention the decision in “Ramesh Kumar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi”, [2023 INSC 596]. This Court deprecated the practice of reducing the process of criminal law into money recovery proceedings. It was held that the process of criminal law could not be utilized for arm-twisting and money-recovery. Particularly, while opposing the prayers for bail. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the very condition to get released, the petitioner should pay 20% of the cheque amount, cannot be sustained. The upshot of the discussion is that the impugned orders invite modification in relation to the said condition.”
Advocate Shyam Lal appeared for the Petitioner whereas Standing Counsel appeared for the Respondents.
The petitioner was facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She was granted an anticipatory bail and on the ground of its violation, a non-bailable warrant was issued against her. She moved the trial court seeking recall of the warrant and enlargement on bail. The said application was disposed of. While considering the same, the trial court passed an order that the petitioner be released on a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount and with the further direction that the applicant should pay 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant on the next date as a condition.
The Apex Court modified the order passed by the High Court relating to the condition requiring the Petitioner to pay 20% of the cheque amount by setting aside the same. In other words, the grant of bail to the petitioner and conditions, if any, imposed therefor, other than the one set aside, would remain intact.
Before the High Court, the petitioner had submitted that she had never taken any loan from the complainant and she was falsely implicated in the case. The entire amount of principal as well as interest was paid to the complainant and the petitioner told him to return her two blank cheques and non-judicial stamp paper, on which, she had put her signature, upon which, the complainant denied returning the same, due to which, some altercation took place between them, as a result of which, this false and concocted complaint was filed by the complainant only to humiliate and harass the Petitioner.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of.
Cause Title: Anjali Kumari v. The State of Bihar and Anr.
Appearances:
Petitioner: AOR Sunil Kumar Verma
Respondents: AORs Samir Ali Khan, Sameer Kumar, Advocates Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan, Shah Rukh Ahmad, Somi Sharma and Mandeep Baisala.