RAMESH KUMAR versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2023] 9 S.C.R. 1165 · Decided: 04-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1165
1165
RAMESH KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No. 1741 of 2023)
JULY 04, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Anticipatory Bail
– Payment of amount as a condition precedent for grant of bail –
Legality of – An FIR was registered u/ss. 420, 406 r/w s. 34 – As per
the FIR, an agreement to sell was executed by and between the
builder and the complainants – Complainants had made payment
of Rs. 17,00,000/- by issuing cheques favouring the appellant-owner
allegedly on the instructions of the builder – Complainants were
not handed over the floor which they intended to purchase –
Apprehending arrest, the appellant moved an application u/s 438
Cr.P.C. before the trial court, which was dismissed – Appellant
approached High Court – High Court granted bail to the appellant
upon a condition of depositing Rs. 22,00,000/- – Appellant failed
to deposit the said amount – Bail granted to the appellant u/s. 438
Cr.P.C. got revoked – On appeal, held: The conditions to be imposed
must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive – All such
conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused
before the investigating officer/court, unhindered completion of
investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance –
However, inclusion of a condition for payment of money by the
applicant for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be
secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated – That
is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of
bail – It is in exceptional cases such as where an allegation of
misappropriation of public money by the accused is levelled and
the accused while seeking indulgence of the Court to have his liberty
secured/restored volunteers to account for the whole or any part of
the public money allegedly misappropriated – 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 – In the instant case, the High Court ought to have
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 1165 : 2023 INSC 596
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
realized that having regard to the nature of 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 – If at
all the offence alleged against the appellant is proved resulting in
his conviction, he would be bound to suffer penal consequence(s)
but despite such conviction he may not be under any obligation to
repay the amount allegedly received from the complainants.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Cr. PC does
empower the high court or the court of sessions to impose such
conditions while making a direction under sub-section (1) as it
may think fit in the light of the facts of the particular case and
such direction may include the conditions as in clauses (i) to (iv)
thereof. However, a reading of the precedents laid down by this
Court referred to above makes the position of law clear that the
conditions to be imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable
or excessive. In the context of grant of bail, all such conditions
that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the
investigating officer/court, unhindered completion of investigation/
trial and safety of the community assume relevance. However,
inclusion of a condition for payment of money by the applicant for
bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by
depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really
not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail. In
exceptional cases such as where an allegation of misappropriation
of public money by the accused is levelled and the accused while
seeking indulgence of the court to have his liberty secured/
restored volunteers to account for the whole or any part of the
public money allegedly misappropriated by him, it would be open
to the concerned court to consider whether in the larger public
interest the money misappropriated should be allowed to be
deposited before the application for anticipatory bail/bail is taken
up for final consideration. After all, no court should be averse to
putting public money back in the system if the situation is
conducive therefor. This approach would be in the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.