Anticipatory bail conditions cannot compel payment of disputed civil dues or convert criminal process into debt recovery.

While granting anticipatory bail, a condition requiring deposit of disputed sale consideration was impermissible where the dispute arose from an agreement for sale and a civil suit for specific performance had already been filed. The Court held that bail jurisdiction is confined to the usual considerations governing arrest and trial, and cannot be used to recover contested civil dues or make the criminal court act as a recovery agent. The deposit condition was therefore unsustainable and deleted, while the grant of anticipatory bail was left to operate under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---

---

Issues: Whether, while granting anticipatory bail, a condition directing deposit of Rs. 41 lakhs could be imposed in a dispute essentially civil in nature.

Analysis: The allegation arose out of an agreement for sale and the complainant had already instituted a civil suit for specific performance. The condition of depositing the entire amount, imposed in an application for pre-arrest bail, operated in substance as recovery of a disputed civil claim. Bail jurisdiction is to be exercised on the usual considerations relevant to arrest and trial, and not to secure disputed dues. A criminal court is not expected to act as a recovery agent for the complainant.

Conclusion: The deposit condition was unsustainable and was deleted. The grant of anticipatory bail was left to operate under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: Conditions attached to anticipatory bail cannot be used to compel payment of disputed civil dues or to effect recovery without trial.

---