Can't Enforce Recovery Claim In Bail Pleas: P&H HC Declines To Cancel Pre-Arrest Bail For Alleged Failure Of Accused To Deposit Settlement Amount

The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to cancel pre-arrest bail of an accused booked in fraud case for allegedly failing to deposit the settlement amount, observing that courts cannot enforce recovery claims in bail plea.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "The mere argument that recovery of the defrauded amount has not been made is insufficient, particularly when the trial Court vide impugned order has categorically noticed and observed that the investigating agency had not sought the custodial interrogation of respondent No.2-accused, and furthermore the petitioner had secured the defrauded amount through a cheque and promissory note."

The Court further said that, Courts are tasked with determining whether the legal conditions for granting bail have been met, not resolving financial disputed between parties. The Court's role, therefore, is to ensure justice and uphold legal standards, rather than enforcing recovery claims on behalf of the complainant.

These observations were made while hearing a petition filed under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023 seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused in a fraud case.

It was alleged that the accused committed fraud amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs against the petitioner  Jashpal Singh Malik, with Rs. 15 lakhs paid via RTGS and Rs. 5 lakhs provided through a promissory note.

Despite the existence of documentary evidence and the fact that no recovery had been made from the accused, the trial Court still went ahead and released the accused on anticipatory bail, added Malik.

He also argued that the accused issued a cheque for Rs.15 lakhs to settle the dispute, but the said cheque was dishonoured upon presentation

 After hearing the submissions, the Court emphasised that cancellation of bail granted to an accused must be reserved only for instances where it comes to the fore that the accused has in some manner misused the said concession by misconducting himself or interfering with the investigation or threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Justice Kaul highlighted that, "bail granted to an accused should be cancelled only on the basis of concrete evidence or significant change in circumstances."

Personal liberty, a cornerstone of constitutional rights, must not therefore be revoked arbitrarily or capriciously. In the present case, after perusing the impugned order, no legal flaw or error can be identified, the judge added.

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misuse of bail or violation of its conditions by the accused.

In the light of the above, the plea for cancellation of anticipatory bail was rejected.

Mr.Manjot Singh Gujral, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T., Chandigarh with Ms.Diksha Sharma, and Mr. Shaurya Nagpal, Advocates, for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh.

Title: Jashpal Singh Malik v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another

Click here to read/download the order