Case No 15125 of 2022 and 19515 of 2022, whereby the High Court took note of the offer made by the accused-respondent No 2, of making payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- (seventy-five thousand) to the petitioner/informant and, considering such an offer and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case pertaining to offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, granted the concession of pre-arrest bail to the respondents, subject to the offered payment.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/courts-analysis-on-bona-fide-requirement-in-eviction-petitions/
According to the petitioner-informant, thereafter, the respondents demanded further money and vehicle and, for such a demand being found inappropriate, the marriage was called off but the respondents did not return the money and the articles.
One of the submissions before the High Court while seeking pre-arrest bail had been that one of the accused, namely Vijaya Malviya, was granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court in its order dated 10.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc.
Having examined the matter in its totality, we are not only inclined to dismiss these petitions and affirm the order impugned granting pre-arrest bail to the private respondents but are also inclined to delete the requirement of payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- (seventy-five thousand) to the informant. Putting it in other words, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the accused has made payment of the money involved or offers to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-evidence-and-courts-ruling/
As such, the money has already been returned to the informant.”
Thus, the aforesaid order dated 10.03.2022, recording the 4 factum of the said payment of a sum of Rs.
6,00,000/- (six lakhs) was paid by the co-accused to the present petitioner but, the present petitioner indeed accepted the offer and received the Bank Draft during the course of hearing before the High Court. He further submits that a bank draft of Rs.6,00,000/- (six lac) dated 28.02.2022 bearing draft number 283114 is being handed over to the learned counsel for the informant which is in favour of the informant (Bimla Tiwary).
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/validity-of-tamil-nadu-land-acquisition-acts/
Even when we are not modifying the condition in the said order dated 10.03.2022 for the same being not before us, so far as the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 is concerned, in our view, it shall be in the interest of justice to annul the requirement of payment of a sum of Rs.
Case Title: BIMLA TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2023 INSC 45)
Case Number: SLP(Crl) No.-000834-000835 / 2023
