No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: 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. 

Latest Legal News