TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court modifies bail condition in civil dispute, highlighting factors for consideration.</h1> <h3>Manoj Kumar Sood & Anr. Versus State of Jharkhand</h3> The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for imposing a bank guarantee as a condition for bail in a civil dispute, stating it resembled attachment ... Grant of bail - imposition of a condition of furnishing of a bank guarantee - case is that 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 - HELD THAT:- By imposing the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.53,60,000/-, the High Court has, in an application for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, virtually issued directions in the nature of attachment before judgment in a civil suit, if not recovery of dues without trial. 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. As held by this Court in ANIL MAHAJAN VERSUS BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. [2004 (10) TMI 621 - SUPREME COURT], the substance of the complaint is to be seen. If criminal proceedings are unwarranted, there can be no question of custody and in no circumstance can bail be made subject to the terms, which tantamount, in effect, to execution at the inception. It is deemed appropriate to modify the order of the High Court impugned by deleting conditions (iv) and (viii) extracted hereinabove, that is, the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.53,60,000/- - SLP disposed off. Issues:1. Granting of bail subject to the condition of deposit of bank guarantee.2. Imposition of conditions akin to attachment before judgment in a civil suit.3. Applicability of criminal proceedings for realization of disputed dues.4. Considerations for granting bail as per the Criminal Procedure Code.5. Interpretation of previous judgments regarding bail conditions.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of bail being granted subject to the condition of depositing a bank guarantee of Rs.53,60,000. The Court found fault with this condition, stating that the High Court erred in making bail conditional upon furnishing a bank guarantee, which is essentially equivalent to a cash deposit. The Court highlighted that the disputes in the case were civil in nature, indicating that bail conditions should not resemble attachment before judgment in a civil suit or recovery of dues without trial.2. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings are not meant for realizing disputed dues. By imposing the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee, the High Court was seen as overstepping its boundaries and issuing directions similar to attachment before judgment in a civil suit. The Court stressed that a Criminal Court should not act as a recovery agent to collect dues for the complainant without a trial.3. Referring to established legal principles, the Court reiterated that bail considerations should focus on factors such as the nature of the accusation, the severity of potential punishment, the materials relied upon by the prosecution, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. The Court emphasized that bail conditions should not be tantamount to execution at the beginning of proceedings.4. The judgment cited previous cases to support its decision, including the case of Shyam Singh vs. State through CBI, where the Court emphasized that bail can be granted or refused without prematurely determining guilt or directing repayment of any amount. Additionally, the Court referred to the case of Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd., highlighting that if criminal proceedings are unwarranted, custody is not justified, and bail cannot be made subject to terms resembling execution at the outset.5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's order by removing the conditions related to the bank guarantee while maintaining other aspects of the bail conditions. The Court clarified that its observations in the order were preliminary and should not impact future proceedings. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of accordingly, with any pending applications being also disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
