Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 60
Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Can a compromise between the accused and the complainant lead to the grant of anticipatory bail? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where the de-facto complainant agreed to withdraw the case if the deposited amount was returned. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of the deposit and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, subject to standard conditions.
Case Background
The appellant, Bikash Manna, was seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in connection with FIR No. 261 of 2017, dated 02.04.2017, registered at Domjur Police Station, Howrah, West Bengal. The High Court had previously denied the appellant’s plea for anticipatory bail. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 02.04.2017 | FIR No. 261 of 2017 registered at Domjur Police Station, Howrah, West Bengal. |
| 15.09.2017 | Supreme Court directs the appellant to implead the de-facto complainant and orders deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs. |
| 30.01.2018 | Supreme Court disposes of the appeal, allows withdrawal of deposit, and grants anticipatory bail. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant had initially approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was denied. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. On 15.09.2017, the Supreme Court directed the appellant to implead the de-facto complainant. The court also ordered that if the appellant was arrested, he should be released on bail, subject to the condition that he deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs before the Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which deals with the grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. states:
“Where the High Court or the Court of Session makes an order under sub-section (1), it may impose such conditions as it thinks fit, including the conditions specified in sub-section (2) of section 437.”
Arguments
The de-facto complainant, represented by Mr. Pijush K. Roy, stated that he had no objection to the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant if the deposited amount was returned. The de-facto complainant was primarily interested in recovering his money and did not wish to pursue the prosecution of the appellant.
The appellant’s counsel had no objection to the submissions made by the de-facto complainant’s counsel.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| De-facto Complainant |
|
| Appellant |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the situation arising from the de-facto complainant’s willingness to settle.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether anticipatory bail can be granted if the de-facto complainant agrees to withdraw the case in exchange for the return of the deposited amount? | The Court allowed the withdrawal of the deposited amount and granted anticipatory bail, subject to the appellant executing a bond and cooperating with the investigation. |
Authorities
No specific authorities were cited by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
| Authority | How it was considered |
|---|---|
| Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) | The Court used this provision to grant anticipatory bail, subject to conditions. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal based on the submissions made by both parties.
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| De-facto complainant’s submission that he has no objection to granting anticipatory bail if the deposited amount is returned | Accepted. The Court allowed the de-facto complainant to withdraw the deposited amount with interest. |
| Appellant’s submission that he has no objection to the de-facto complainant’s submission | Accepted. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. | The Court used this provision to grant anticipatory bail, subject to conditions, after considering the submissions of both the parties. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Court was the de-facto complainant’s willingness to withdraw the case if the deposited amount was returned. This indicated that the dispute was primarily financial in nature, and the complainant was not keen on pursuing the criminal prosecution. The court also considered the fact that the appellant had no objection to the complainant’s submission.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Settlement and Compromise | 70% |
| Financial Resolution | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court stated:
“In view of the above circumstances, without going into the various other disputes, we dispose of this appeal as follows:-“
“i.)The de-facto complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before this Court pursuant to our order dated 15.09.2017, along with the interest accrued.”
“ii.)In case the appellant is arrested in connection with FIR No.261 of 2017 registered at Police Station Damjur, Howrah, West Bengal, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on his executing a bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand) with two sureties to the like amount. However, this order is subject to the other conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ A compromise between the accused and the de-facto complainant can be a significant factor in granting anticipatory bail.
- ✓ The court may allow the withdrawal of deposited amounts if the complainant is primarily interested in recovering money rather than pursuing prosecution.
- ✓ Anticipatory bail can be granted subject to conditions, such as executing a bond and cooperating with the investigation.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the de-facto complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before the Court, along with the interest accrued. The Court also directed that in case the appellant is arrested, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases where the dispute is primarily financial and the de-facto complainant is willing to settle, the court may grant anticipatory bail and allow the withdrawal of deposited amounts. This decision reinforces the principle that the courts can consider the practical aspects of a dispute and encourage settlements where appropriate.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by allowing the de-facto complainant to withdraw the deposited amount and granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. This decision highlights the court’s willingness to facilitate settlements and consider the practical realities of disputes.