https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306948 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. en-us Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Mar 2023 00:00:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306948 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306948