The Supreme Court in the case Bimla Tiwari vs State of Bihar observed that the process of criminal law cannot be utilised for an armtwisting and money recover, thus, the court opposed the prayer for bail. The bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy in the case observed that the recovery of money is essentially being within the realm of civil proceedings. It has also been stated by the court that there being no justification in adopting such a course for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail and the person who is apprehending arrest ought to make payment. In the present case, the accused is alleged of committing offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3 and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application was allowed by the Patna High Court recording the offer made by one of the accused of making payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- (seventy-five thousand) to the informant. It has been contended by the informant before the Apex Court that after the issuance of process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for pre-arrest bail ought not to have been granted and that the same had clearly been a case of illegal demand of money and cheating. The bench refused to interfere with the said order, the court stated that the said criminal proceedings are being prosecuted only as money recovery proceedings. Therefore, the bench in the case also set aside the condition of payment of Rs.75,000/- . The bench in the case made the following observations: The process of criminal law cannot be utilised for money recovery and for an armtwisting The said court have indicated on more than one occasion that the process of criminal law, particularly in matters of grant of bail, is not akin to money recovery proceedings but what has been noticed by the court in the present case carries the peculiarities of its own. Therefore, the same would reiterate that the process of criminal law cannot be utilised for money recovery and arm, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail. The question before the court is that as to whether pre-arrest bail, or for that matter regular bail, in a given case is to be granted or is not required to be examined and the discretion is required which is to be exercised by the Court with reference to the material on record and the parameters governing bail considerations. However, the recovery of money being essentially within the realm of civil proceedings. In the given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the accused has made the payment of the money which is involved or offers to make any payment and the concession of pre arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment. Further, it has been emphasized that there being no justification in adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of prearrest bail and the person apprehending arrest ought to make payment. Therefore, recovery of money being essentially within the realm of civil proceedings.
