LI Network
Published on: December 11, 2023 at 15:12 IST
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has underscored that bail proceedings should not be utilized as a means of recovering money in monetary disputes, clarifying that issues related to the recovery of funds are civil matters and should be addressed through appropriate legal channels.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, presiding over the case and allowing the bail applications of the accused/petitioners, emphasized, “The bail proceedings cannot be used to recover the amount advanced by the informant.” The court stressed that if the money was given as help and not returned, it would lead to civil liability rather than criminal liability.
The case involved accusations against the petitioners of enticing the informant into opening a gold shop, failing to supply the agreed-upon gold, and not returning the invested money. The informant claimed to have provided financial assistance to petitioner Geeta, who allegedly invested the money in gold instead of returning it.
Justice Kainthla scrutinized the allegations and pointed out that the money was extended as help and was not entrusted to the accused.
The court emphasized that, at this stage, no evidence had been presented to establish the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC.
The court cited the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (2023) and clarified that criminal proceedings are not designed for the realization of disputed dues.
Acknowledging the primary focus on recovering money through bail proceedings, the court allowed the bail applications, making interim bail orders absolute until the case’s disposal. The petitioners were directed to comply with all terms and conditions set by the court.
Case Title: Geeta Kashyap v. State of Himachal Pradesh (and connected matter)
