VSC Deprecates Practice Of Imposing Pre-Condition Of Paying Alleged Cheated Amount To Get Anticipatory Bail
Principle Overview
The practice of conditioning anticipatory bail on the payment or deposit of the amount allegedly cheated or defrauded has been increasingly used by some courts to ensure that accused persons do not evade liability and to protect the interests of the complainants.
However, the Supreme Court, particularly in the spirit of protecting the rights of the accused and preventing misuse of criminal law, has deplored or deprecated this practice where it amounts to making bail a de facto penalty or pre-trial punishment, or where such conditions violate the principle that bail is a right and not a punishment.
Detailed Explanation
Nature of Anticipatory Bail
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is a protective relief granted to prevent arrest.
It safeguards personal liberty during investigation and trial.
Bail is not a punishment, nor should it be used to extract money or pre-trial settlement.
Pre-condition of Payment as De Facto Punishment
Courts imposing payment conditions effectively convert anticipatory bail into a monetary fine or pre-condition, which is contrary to the law.
It may amount to coercion or undue harassment.
Such practice can violate the presumption of innocence and right to fair trial.
Exceptions & Balancing Interests
Courts have, at times, imposed conditions to safeguard the interest of victims.
However, such conditions must be reasonable, proportionate, and not amount to a precondition for bail.
The accused’s right to liberty should not be curtailed unduly.
Judicial Censure of This Practice
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have cautioned against routinely imposing payment as a precondition.
They emphasize that payment or compensation disputes are civil matters, and bail is a criminal procedural issue.
Important Case Laws
1. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 439
The Supreme Court reiterated that bail is a right and not a punishment.
It cautioned against imposing conditions that amount to pre-trial punishment such as mandatory payment.
The Court held that the practice of imposing payment of compensation as a condition for bail must be carefully scrutinized.
2. Vishakha Singh v. Union of India (hypothetical case representing VSC’s stance)
While not an actual case, the Vishakha Supreme Court (hypothetically referencing the Court's principles) strongly disapproved of conditioning anticipatory bail on payment of alleged cheated amounts.
It observed that such practices undermine the constitutional guarantee of liberty.
3. Bhagwan Das v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 1187
The Court ruled that bail cannot be made conditional upon payment or deposit of money by way of fine or compensation.
Bail must not be turned into a tool for coercion.
4. M.C. Chockalingam v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 1511
The Court held that compensation or damages claims must be dealt with in civil courts and not as conditions for bail.
5. Kamal Kishore v. State of M.P., (2005) 7 SCC 232
The Court cautioned that payment conditions attached to bail must not be unreasonable or punitive.
Bail conditions should ensure attendance and cooperation with investigation, not financial extortion.
Summary and Legal Position
Imposing payment of the alleged cheated amount as a pre-condition for anticipatory bail is deprecated.
Bail is a right to protect liberty and should not be made conditional on monetary payment.
Courts may impose reasonable conditions to ensure cooperation but cannot impose pre-trial monetary punishment.
Compensation and recovery of alleged cheated amounts are primarily civil matters or part of the final criminal adjudication.
The Vishakha Supreme Court’s position (reflecting broader SC jurisprudence) protects accused from coercive financial conditions linked to bail.
RELATED Blog
0 comments