Bail Proceedings Can't Be Turned Into Recovery Proceedings In Monetary Disputes: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Allowing the bail applications of accused/petitioners, Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed,

“..The bail proceedings cannot be used to recover the amount advanced by the informant..It appears from the status report that the informant had invested the money in gold through Geeta but he has projected a different version that he had advanced the money as a help to Geeta. If the money was advanced as a help and is not being returned, it will give rise to civil liability and not criminal liability”.

The informant in the instant case accused the petitioners of luring him into opening a gold shop, failing to supply the agreed gold, and not returning the invested money. He asserted that he had provided financial assistance to petitioner-Geeta after her house collapsed in a landslide. However, instead of returning the money, she invested it in gold.

Justice Kainthla, after carefully examining the allegations, highlighted that the money was extended as help and not entrusted to the accused. It was stressed that no case of inducement or delivery of property based on inducement had been established at this stage, and thus, the offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC was not prima facie made out against the petitioners.

Noting that the informant and the State were primarily focused on recovering the money through the bail proceedings, the bench referenced Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (2023), and stated that criminal proceedings are not meant for realization of disputed dues.

In light of the observations, the court allowed the bail applications, making the interim bail orders absolute until the disposal of the case. The petitioners were directed to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the court.

Counsels for petitioners: Advocates Vinod Chauhan and Pawan Gautam

Counsel for respondent: Deputy Advocate General RP Singh

Case Title: Geeta Kashyap v. State of Himachal Pradesh (and connected matter)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 76

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement