Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High 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