Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |    

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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. 

Similar News