Justice Dinesh Maheshwari sitting along Justice Bela M Trivedi held that pre arrest bail are not same as money recovery proceedings petitions where conditions of depositing money can be passed as compensation.

While setting aside the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, the Supreme Court held that for the purposes of giving concession of anticipatory bail, the person concerned apprehending arrest can not be asked to make payment. When the matter was heard by the Supreme Court, it was found that the Jharkhand High Court has directed the accused to deposit Rs. 7.5 Lakh as "victim compensation" which the court find not sustainable and set aside the same.

The Supreme Court observed that "Even if we take the submissions of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent on its face value, we are clearly of the view that in essence, the petitions seeking relief of prearrest bail are not money recovery proceedings and, ordinarily, there is no justification for adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person concerned apprehending arrest has to make payment. "

The Apex Court finally passed the order that "For what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, the order impugned is modified in the manner that while other directions and requirements of the order i.e., of releasing the appellants on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000/-, shall remain intact but the other part of the order, requiring the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-, shall stand annulled."

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1703-1704 OF 2022
UDHO THAKUR AND ANR. ETC. .....Appellant(s)
Vs.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. ....Respondent(s)

Read the Complete Judgment:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/12447/12447_2019_9_18_38688_Order_29-Sep-2022.pdf