On January 16, a Supreme Court division bench led by Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy observed that the criminal law process cannot be used for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly when opposing a bail application. The bench observed that money recovery falls primarily under the purview of civil proceedings. The court stated that there is no justification for requiring the person facing arrest to make payment in order to be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.

In this case, the accused were accused of violating Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Patna High Court granted their anticipatory bail application, noting one of the accused's offers to pay the informant Rs.75,000/- (seventy-five thousand rupees).

The informant contended before the Supreme Court that, following the issuance of process under Section 82 CrPC, the prayer for pre-arrest bail should not have been granted; and that it was clearly a case of illegal money demand and cheating.

While refusing to impede with the order, the bench stated that these criminal proceedings are being indicted solely for money recovery purposes. The bench also reserved the payment condition of Rs.75,000/-.

The bench made the following observations in this regard:

"We have indicated on more than one occasion that the process of criminal law, particularly in matters of grant of bail, is not akin to money recovery proceedings but what has been noticed in the present case carries the peculiarities of its own.. We would reiterate that the process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail. The question as to whether pre-arrest bail, or for that matter regular bail, in a given case is to be granted or not is required to be examined and the discretion is required to be exercised by the Court with reference to the material on record and the parameters governing bail considerations."

"Putting it in other words, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the accused has made payment of the money involved or offers to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment.  We would further emphasize that, ordinarily, there is no justification in adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person apprehending arrest ought to make payment. Recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings."

Case details: Bimla Tiwari vs State of Bihar 
Citation: SLP(Crl) 834-835 OF 2023

To read the complete order click the below link
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/41186/41186_2022_6_33_41001_Judgement_16-Jan-2023.pdf

Appearance of the Advocates:-

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR