Summary
A broken engagement led to a dowry and cheating case. The Patna High Court granted the accused pre-arrest bail on their offer to pay the informant a further Rs. 75,000, and the informant challenged the bail. The Supreme Court dismissed her petitions and upheld the bail, but deleted the payment condition. Criminal process, particularly in bail matters, cannot be used to arm-twist an accused or recover money. Whether bail is granted depends on the record and settled bail parameters, not on payment or an offer to pay, and recovery of money belongs in civil proceedings. The informant had also not disclosed that she had already received Rs. 6 lakh from a co-accused in earlier bail proceedings, which showed the case was being pursued as money recovery.
Issues
- Whether pre-arrest bail could properly be made conditional on the accused paying money to the informant, and whether the informant's challenge to the grant of pre-arrest bail should succeed.
Provisions considered
- Sections 438, 82 and 83, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Pre-arrest bail must be decided on the material on record and the parameters governing bail, not on payment; the grant was affirmed despite the informant's objection that proclamation processes had issued. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 11, 16)
- Sections 406 and 420 IPC; Sections 3 and 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961These were the offences alleged, arising from Rs. 6 lakh given at the engagement and later demands after which the marriage was called off. (¶¶ 2, 3)
Held
- The process of criminal law, particularly in bail matters, is not a money recovery proceeding and cannot be used for arm-twisting; bail may be refused despite payment or granted without it, and ordinarily a person seeking pre-arrest bail should not be required to pay, recovery of money belonging to civil proceedings. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The informant suppressed that she had received Rs. 6 lakh by bank draft from a co-accused during his anticipatory bail hearing, an order with a material bearing on the case, showing that the proceedings were being prosecuted only as money recovery; the Court expressed reservations about that earlier order too, though it was not before it. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondents is affirmed, but the condition requiring respondent No. 2 to pay Rs. 75,000 is annulled in the interest of justice. (¶¶ 8, 16)
Result
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 834-835 of 2023 against the Patna High Court order dated 14.11.2022 in Crl. Misc. Nos. 15125 and 19515 of 2022 dismissed; pre-arrest bail affirmed with the condition of payment of Rs. 75,000 annulled.