Bail conditions cannot be used to recover disputed civil dues; a bank guarantee requirement was struck down as onerous.

In bail proceedings, a court cannot condition liberty on furnishing a bank guarantee for disputed civil dues where the controversy is essentially civil and a specific performance suit is already pending. Bail conditions must stay within settled liberty-based parameters and cannot operate as de facto recovery, attachment before judgment, or execution without trial. A requirement to secure the disputed amount through a bank guarantee was therefore held onerous and unwarranted. The monetary bail condition was deleted, while the remaining terms of bail were left intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a bail application, the Court could make the grant of bail conditional upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.53,60,000/- in aid of disputed civil claims.

Analysis: The dispute was essentially civil in nature and the complainant had already instituted a civil suit for specific performance. A criminal court deciding bail is concerned with the settled bail parameters, and not with securing payment of disputed dues or issuing directions that operate like attachment before judgment or recovery without trial. A condition requiring a bank guarantee of the disputed amount was treated as onerous and unwarranted because it converted the bail order into an instrument for recovery rather than a judicial determination on liberty.

Conclusion: The condition requiring furnishing of the bank guarantee was not sustainable and was deleted; the bail order otherwise remained intact.

Final Conclusion: The special leave petition succeeded to the extent of setting aside the monetary bail condition, while the remaining terms of bail were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail court cannot impose a condition that effectively compels recovery of disputed civil dues or operates as execution at the inception.

---