Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal against the impugned order of Bombay High Court wherein the Court had dismissed the appellant’s application against cancellation of his bail on ground of default in paying Rs 40,00,000; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ., relying on Ramesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 7 SCC 461; St. George Dsouza v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1940 and Dilip Singh v. State of MP, (2021) 2 SCC 779; reiterated that the courts exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/pre-arrest bail, are not expected to act as recovery agents for realization of dues of the complainant from the accused.
Background:
The appellant was granted bail by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 19-5-2023. It was noted in the order that charge-sheet under Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been filed upon completion of investigation and that there was no sufficient reason to reject the application for bail. However, since the appellant had shown readiness to deposit Rs. 40,00,000, the prayer for bail was granted on condition of payment of such sum. The appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 at the time of getting released on bail and the remaining sum of Rs. 30,00,000 in six installments.
The appellant initially paid Rs. 10,00,000/- but the remaining sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- could not be arranged by him and hence, he defaulted. This led the appellant to apply for modification of the condition requiring him to make payment of the sum of Rs. 30,00,000; however, such application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.
Upon the appellant’s default to make payment, as directed vide order dated 19-5-2023, the complainant had approached the Sessions Judge with a prayer for cancellation of bail. Vide order dated 29-6-2024, the bail granted to the appellant was cancelled.
Thereafter the appellant moved an application challenging the afore-said order. The Bombay High Court via the impugned order dated 19-9-2024 while dismissing the application, opined that the appellant had volunteered to make payment of Rs. 40,00,000 and the Sessions Judge granted the prayer for bail “taking into account the voluntary statement made on his behalf”.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the facts of the case, the Court pointed out that the High Court did not seem to have correctly understood the Sessions Judge’s order dated 19-5-2024. No doubt the appellant had made a voluntary statement to make payment but that was not the sole reason which weighed in the mind of the Sessions Judge to grant bail; on the contrary, the Sessions Judge is a clearly stated that there was no sufficient reason to keep the appellant under detention having regard to completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.
The Bench further said that the High Court should have independently applied its mind and arrived at a conclusion as to whether a case for grant of bail, on settled parameters, had been made out or not irrespective of whatever statement was made on behalf of the appellant before the Sessions Judge.
Henceforth, the Court set aside the High Court’s impugned order with the criminal applications revived on the file of the High Court for being decided afresh in accordance with law.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
