'Disquieting trend,' SC on courts telling accused to deposit cheated amount for pre-arrest bail

The Supreme Court on Tuesday disapproved a "disquieting trend" wherein the courts asked the accused in cheating cases to deposit money as a condition of pre-arrest bail.

A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta said inclusion of a condition for payment of money for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated, which is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code.

"Law regarding exercise of discretion while granting a prayer for bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code having been authoritatively laid down by this court, we cannot but disapprove the imposition of a condition of the nature under challenge," the bench said.

Also Read | PIL for re-classification of caste system dismissed by SC

The court expressed concern over the disquieting trend, which emerged over the years and gained pace in recent times.

It has been found by us in multiple cases, judicial proceedings initiated by persons, accused of cheating, to obtain bail 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 or payment as pre-requisite for grant of pre-arrest bail, the bench said.

It pointed out Sub-section (2) of section 438 of the CrPC does empower the high court or the court of sessions to impose such conditions.

"However, a reading of the precedents laid down by this Court makes the position of law clear that the conditions to be imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive," the bench said.

The bench also clarified that in exceptional cases, where an allegation of misappropriation of public money by the accused is levelled, it would be open to the concerned court to consider such a condition in the larger public interest.

"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 said.

The court remanded a matter to the Delhi High Court for fresh consideration in which appellant Ramesh Kumar was told to deposit Rs 22 lakh as a condition precedent for grant of bail in a cheating case.

The High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the appellant, without looking into the nature of dispute which was predominantly civil in nature, it said.