SC flags ‘disquieting pattern’ of accused giving endeavor to deposit cheated quantity to safe bail
9 min readBy PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored the emergence of a “disquieting trend”, whereby these accused of dishonest secures bail by giving an endeavor to deposit the quantity owed to the complainant.
The prime court docket cautioned the decrease courts to not be “unduly swayed” by such appeals.
A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta despatched again to the Delhi High Court a matter during which it had granted bail to a person accused of dishonest in a property dispute case with a precondition that he deposits Rs 22 lakh he had allegedly cheated.
“It has been found by us in multiple cases in the past several months that upon FIRs being lodged inter alia under section 420 of the IPC, judicial proceedings initiated by persons, accused of cheating, to obtain orders under Section 438 of the CrPC are unwittingly being transformed into processes for recovery of the quantum of money allegedly cheated and the courts driven to impose conditions for deposit/payment as pre-requisite for grant of pre-arrest bail,” the bench stated.
Calling it a “disquieting trend” which has gained tempo in current instances”, the court said, “It is taken into account acceptable to remind the excessive courts and the periods courts to not be unduly swayed by submissions superior by counsel on behalf of the accused within the nature of undertakings to maintain in deposit/repay any quantity whereas looking for bail underneath part 438 of the CrPC (bail) and incorporating a situation in that behalf for deposit/fee as a pre-requisite for grant of bail.”
The bench stated the inclusion of the situation of fee by an accused for looking for bail tends to create an impression that the aid could possibly be secured by depositing cash alleged to have been cheated.
“That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for the grant of bail. We may, however, not be understood to have laid down the law that in no case should willingness to make payment/deposit by the accused be considered before granting of an order for bail,” it stated.
The bench stated in distinctive instances, comparable to the place an allegation of misappropriation of public cash has been levelled in opposition to an accused who, whereas looking for the indulgence of the court docket to have his liberty secured, volunteers to account for the entire or any a part of the general public cash allegedly misappropriated, it could be open to the court docket to think about in public curiosity whether or not such cash ought to be allowed to be deposited earlier than an software for anticipatory or common bail is taken up for last consideration.
“After all, no court should be averse to putting public money back in the system if the situation is conducive. Therefore we are minded to think that this approach would be in the larger interest of the community. However, such an approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties complain of their money being involved in the offence of cheating,” the bench stated.
The prime court docket made the remarks on an attraction filed by Ramesh Kumar, the proprietor of an immovable property in Delhi, for the event of which he had entered into three agreements with a builder named Ashwani Kumar.
In phrases of the settlement dated December 19, 2018, the builder was required to assemble a multi-storey constructing during which Ramesh Kumar would have possession rights in respect of the third flooring and the higher flooring, other than Rs 55 lakh to be paid to him by the builder, whereas the builder would have rights to take care of the first and the 2nd flooring along with different rights as described therein.
In pursuance of the settlement, the builder entered into an settlement to promote and buy/bayana dated December 14, 2018 with Vinay Kumar and Sandeep Kumar (complainants) was signed in respect of the 2nd flooring of the proposed constructing (with out roof rights) for a sum of Rs 60 lakh.
As a dispute arose between the events over fee, the matter reached courts after the complainants lodged an FIR alleging dishonest by Ramesh Kumar and others.
Apprehending arrest, Ramesh Kumar, the proprietor of the property moved the related felony court docket looking for bail and the trial court docket initially granted interim safety from arrest, topic to his cooperating with the investigation.
The trial court docket, nevertheless, by an order dated January 18, 2022 dismissed Ramesh Kumar’s software for bail and withdrew the interim safety granted to him.
He then challenged the order of the trial court docket earlier than the excessive court docket, which on November 24, 2022 granted bail to him and the builder, topic to sure circumstances together with that of depositing an quantity of Rs 22 lakh with the trial court docket.
Unable to rearrange the quantity, Ramesh Kumar once more moved the excessive court docket looking for extension of time for making the deposit.
The excessive court docket granted him three days to deposit the quantity and warned him his bail shall be cancelled if he did not deposit the cash.
Feeling aggrieved, Ramesh Kumar moved the highest court docket difficult the situation imposed by the excessive court docket on the problem of deposit.
The prime court docket stated, “The High Court ought to have realized that having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties, which is predominantly civil in nature, the process of criminal law cannot be pressed into service for settling a civil dispute.”
“Under the circumstances, we hold that the High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the appellant and imposing payment of Rs 22 lakh as a condition precedent for grant of bail,” the Supreme Court stated.
It remitted the matter to the excessive court docket and directed re-consideration of the appliance for pre-arrest bail.
The apex court docket requested the HC to resolve the matter by itself deserves in mild of its observations as early as doable however ideally earlier than August 31, 2023.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored the emergence of a “disquieting trend”, whereby these accused of dishonest secures bail by giving an endeavor to deposit the quantity owed to the complainant.
The prime court docket cautioned the decrease courts to not be “unduly swayed” by such appeals.
A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta despatched again to the Delhi High Court a matter during which it had granted bail to a person accused of dishonest in a property dispute case with a precondition that he deposits Rs 22 lakh he had allegedly cheated.googletag.cmd.push(operate() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );
“It has been found by us in multiple cases in the past several months that upon FIRs being lodged inter alia under section 420 of the IPC, judicial proceedings initiated by persons, accused of cheating, to obtain orders under Section 438 of the CrPC are unwittingly being transformed into processes for recovery of the quantum of money allegedly cheated and the courts driven to impose conditions for deposit/payment as pre-requisite for grant of pre-arrest bail,” the bench stated.
Calling it a “disquieting trend” which has gained tempo in current instances”, the court said, “It is taken into account acceptable to remind the excessive courts and the periods courts to not be unduly swayed by submissions superior by counsel on behalf of the accused within the nature of undertakings to maintain in deposit/repay any quantity whereas looking for bail underneath part 438 of the CrPC (bail) and incorporating a situation in that behalf for deposit/fee as a pre-requisite for grant of bail.”
The bench stated the inclusion of the situation of fee by an accused for looking for bail tends to create an impression that the aid could possibly be secured by depositing cash alleged to have been cheated.
“That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for the grant of bail. We may, however, not be understood to have laid down the law that in no case should willingness to make payment/deposit by the accused be considered before granting of an order for bail,” it stated.
The bench stated in distinctive instances, comparable to the place an allegation of misappropriation of public cash has been levelled in opposition to an accused who, whereas looking for the indulgence of the court docket to have his liberty secured, volunteers to account for the entire or any a part of the general public cash allegedly misappropriated, it could be open to the court docket to think about in public curiosity whether or not such cash ought to be allowed to be deposited earlier than an software for anticipatory or common bail is taken up for last consideration.
“After all, no court should be averse to putting public money back in the system if the situation is conducive. Therefore we are minded to think that this approach would be in the larger interest of the community. However, such an approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties complain of their money being involved in the offence of cheating,” the bench stated.
The prime court docket made the remarks on an attraction filed by Ramesh Kumar, the proprietor of an immovable property in Delhi, for the event of which he had entered into three agreements with a builder named Ashwani Kumar.
In phrases of the settlement dated December 19, 2018, the builder was required to assemble a multi-storey constructing during which Ramesh Kumar would have possession rights in respect of the third flooring and the higher flooring, other than Rs 55 lakh to be paid to him by the builder, whereas the builder would have rights to take care of the first and the 2nd flooring along with different rights as described therein.
In pursuance of the settlement, the builder entered into an settlement to promote and buy/bayana dated December 14, 2018 with Vinay Kumar and Sandeep Kumar (complainants) was signed in respect of the 2nd flooring of the proposed constructing (with out roof rights) for a sum of Rs 60 lakh.
As a dispute arose between the events over fee, the matter reached courts after the complainants lodged an FIR alleging dishonest by Ramesh Kumar and others.
Apprehending arrest, Ramesh Kumar, the proprietor of the property moved the related felony court docket looking for bail and the trial court docket initially granted interim safety from arrest, topic to his cooperating with the investigation.
The trial court docket, nevertheless, by an order dated January 18, 2022 dismissed Ramesh Kumar’s software for bail and withdrew the interim safety granted to him.
He then challenged the order of the trial court docket earlier than the excessive court docket, which on November 24, 2022 granted bail to him and the builder, topic to sure circumstances together with that of depositing an quantity of Rs 22 lakh with the trial court docket.
Unable to rearrange the quantity, Ramesh Kumar once more moved the excessive court docket looking for extension of time for making the deposit.
The excessive court docket granted him three days to deposit the quantity and warned him his bail shall be cancelled if he did not deposit the cash.
Feeling aggrieved, Ramesh Kumar moved the highest court docket difficult the situation imposed by the excessive court docket on the problem of deposit.
The prime court docket stated, “The High Court ought to have realized that having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties, which is predominantly civil in nature, the process of criminal law cannot be pressed into service for settling a civil dispute.”
“Under the circumstances, we hold that the High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the appellant and imposing payment of Rs 22 lakh as a condition precedent for grant of bail,” the Supreme Court stated.
It remitted the matter to the excessive court docket and directed re-consideration of the appliance for pre-arrest bail.
The apex court docket requested the HC to resolve the matter by itself deserves in mild of its observations as early as doable however ideally earlier than August 31, 2023.
