Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: 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