In Brief
This appeal challenged a High Court order granting anticipatory bail to the appellant but imposing a condition requiring deposit of Rs 41 lakhs—money the complainant claimed he had paid for agricultural land but for which the appellant had not executed a deed. The Supreme Court held that while criminal courts have discretion in bail matters, they cannot function as recovery agents for civil disputes. The Court deleted the deposit condition, holding that imposing such requirements in bail applications—especially where a civil suit for specific performance is already pending—violates the proper scope of bail jurisdiction. Anticipatory bail must be governed only by statutory conditions and factors relating to flight risk and witness safety.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.