Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Pre-Arrest Bail Not Meant for Money Recovery: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized that the process of granting pre-arrest bail should not be utilized as a means of money recovery. The Court highlighted that the purpose of bail considerations is to examine the material on record and make a decision accordingly. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, sheds light on the principles governing the grant of pre-arrest bail.

The case, titled Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar & Ors., involved a challenge to the High Court's order granting pre-arrest bail to the accused respondents subject to the condition of making a specified payment. The petitioner, Bimla Tiwari, contended that bail should not have been granted after the issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Supreme Court, in its observation, stated, "The process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail." The Court clarified that the decision to grant pre-arrest bail or regular bail should be based on the material on record and the parameters governing bail considerations. It further emphasized that the recovery of money is primarily within the realm of civil proceedings and should not be a determining factor in granting bail.

The Court also took note of a previous order where a co-accused had made a payment to the petitioner, which was accepted. However, since that specific order was not before the Court, it refrained from making any directions regarding it.

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions challenging the High Court's order and affirmed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondents. However, the Court annulled the requirement of payment imposed on accused-respondent No. 2.

This judgment sets an important precedent, clarifying the purpose of pre-arrest bail and emphasizing that it should not be used as a means of money recovery. The decision reinforces the principle that the grant of bail should be based on the merits of the case and the considerations of justice, rather than financial arrangements.

 

Date of Decision: January 16, 2023

BIMLA TIWARI vs STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 

Latest Legal News