"Supreme Court Quashes Coercive Bail Condition: Upholds Principles Against Monetary Recovery in Criminal Proceedings"
The Supreme Court was shocked to find that, despite its prior judgments deprecating practices, where criminal law was used as a tool for recovery of money, lower courts were still imposing conditions akin to recovery proceedings as part of bail orders.
The Supreme Court set aside the condition requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the cheque amount, stating that it could not be sustained. However, it upheld the grant of bail with the other conditions imposed by the trial court, except for the one set aside. The special leave petition was disposed of in these terms, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
Anjali Kumari v. The State of Bihar and Another
SLP(Crl)6298/2024
Before the Supreme Court of India
Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C T Ravikumar J & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra J
Fact: Anjali Kumari, the petitioner, faced trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for issuing a dishonored cheque. She was initially granted anticipatory bail, but due to its violation, a non-bailable warrant was issued. The petitioner sought to recall the warrant and requested bail from the trial court. The trial court granted bail on the condition that she provide a bond of âš20,000 with two sureties of the same amount and pay 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant on the next date.
Legal Issue : Whether the condition imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court, requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the cheque amount as a precondition for bail, was legally sustainable.
Contention of the Parties :
Petitioner's Submission : The condition to pay 20% of the cheque amount was unjust and contrary to established legal principles, specifically citing the decision in "Ramesh Kumar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi" [2023 INSC 596]. It was contended that criminal proceedings should not be converted into mechanisms for monetary recovery.
Respondent's Submission: The condition was justified under the circumstances.
Court's Observation: The imposition of the condition requiring payment of 20% of the cheque amount for bail is improper. The Court reiterated that criminal law should not be used as a tool for coercive recovery of money and cited the precedent set in "Ramesh Kumar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi."
