Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case for anticipatory bail.
A criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner of the present case in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh where he was accused of procuring an amount of Rs.41 lakhs from the complainant upon the promise of executing a sale deed for an agricultural land but had failed to do so. The petitioner hence sought an anticipatory bail which was granted by the High Court, however, in addition to granting the bail, the court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 41 lakhs in the court. The petitioner, therefore, challenging the jurisdiction of the court in acting as recovery agent, appealed in the Supreme Court.
Recording the submission of the petitioner, the divisional bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna stated that disputed dues being a matter of civil suits, cannot be realized in criminal cases. Stating so, it was explained that the application of bail before the high court was that of criminal nature raised under Section 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), hence, the court’s jurisdiction extends only to the extent of deciding the grant or denial of the bail application. The court further laid down certain factors that must be taken into consideration while deciding a bail application, some of which are, the nature of accusation, apprehension of threat to complainant, severity of punishment upon conviction, possibility of abscondence, etc.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court, set aside the order passed by the High Court stating that the court acting as a criminal court and disposing a bail application was not expected to realize dues of the complainant without the occurrence of a trial.
86540
103860
630
114
59824