IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3485/2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 4913/2026
RENU MEHTA & ANR. ….. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ….. RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard Mr. PS Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the
appellants; Mohd Irshad, learned Additional Advocate General for
the State of Punjab; and Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel for
the informants- respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. The related Special Leave Petition has been filed against the
condition imposed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (High
Court) while granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. The
offending condition reads thus:
27. So, the concession of bail is further
subject to deposit of an amount of
Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores), in the
Court of the Area Magistrate or with the
Investigating Officer in the form of a Fixed
Deposit Receipt (FDR) from a nationalized
bank, wherever dispute remains pending,
within a period of six months from today.
Petitioners are directed to ensure that the
said FDR is renewed at least one week prior
to its expiry, until such time as it is
encashed by the concerned party.
It is further clarified that the FDR with
its matured amount shall be encashed by the
concerned party subject to the final decision
in the case by the competent court, or
alternatively, if the dispute is resolved
amicably between the parties.
- Appellants are accused in FIR No.78 of 2022 registered at
Police Station Phase-1 S.A.S. Nagar, (Mohali) under Sections 406,
420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).
Shorn of details, as per the allegation made in the FIR, appellants
have duped the informants of a substantial sum of money which the
informants had invested through them for purchase of an industrial
estate at Mohali in the State of Punjab. It is not necessary at
this stage to go into the minute details of the allegations against
the appellants in as much as grant of anticipatory bail by the High
Court to the appellants have not been assailed either by the State
or by the informants. - In the impugned order, the High Court noted that informants
have already instituted a suit for specific performance being Civil
Suit No.265 of 2024 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, S.A.S. Nagar- Mohali; the allegations and materials
disclose a dispute having a predominantly civil flavour. By the
impugned order dated 22.12.2025 the appellants have been granted
the benefit of pre-arrest bail but on the condition, extracted
supra. - While disposing of the matter, the High Court observed that
the investigation should be expedited whereafter the Trial Court
should finally be decided within one year. - This Court by order dated 13.04.2026, issued notice and stayed
the condition of depositing 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crores ₹
only) as a condition precedent for bail. However, this Court
directed the appellants to file an undertaking before the Trial
Court that they would not transfer the properties any further. - Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel submits that in so far
the undertaking directed by this Court is concerned, the same has
already been filed. He submits that the High Court has also
accepted the contention of the appellant that the dispute between
the informant and the appellants is primarily civil in nature and
therefore had granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. However,
the High Court could not have imposed the condition of deposit of
₹4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crores only). In support of his
contention, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
I. Munish Bhasin v. State NCT of Delhi (2009)
4 SCC 45.
II. Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (2023)
7 SCC 461.
III. Pratnik Kumar v. State of Jharkhand SLP
(Crl) D.No.4297/2026.
IV. Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr.
8.1. On the strength of the above decided cases, Mr. Patwalia,
learned senior counsel submits that this Court may set aside the
condition of deposit of 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crores only) as ₹
imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail to the
appellants.
9. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab
referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
submits that investigation is complete whereafter the final report
in the form of charge sheet has been prepared which would be
presented before the Court shortly.
10. Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel for the informants respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that respondent No.2 is now more than 90 years old. It is an admitted fact that she has been duped
by the appellants. Though the transaction in question took place
about 15-16 years ago, she is still awaiting justice in this case.
Therefore, the High Court after noticing the plight of the
informants, imposed the aforesaid condition of deposit of money to
balance the interest on both the parties. In so far the judgments
of this Court is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that
each case turns on its own facts. In a matter relating to grant of
bail, regular or anticipatory, the Court has the discretion to
impose such conditions as it thinks necessary for furthering the
cause of justice. Therefore, no interference is called for.
11. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have
received the due consideration of the Court.
12. As already noted above, facts are not in dispute. The only
issue is regarding legality and validity of the condition imposed
by the High Court directing the appellants to deposit an amount of
₹4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crores only) before the concerned
magistrate as a condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail.
- In Munish Bhasin, this Court observed that while exercising
discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) neither the High Court
nor the Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish
conditions. Though the Court has the discretion to impose
necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an
accused on bail under Section 438 CrPC but the accused cannot be
subjected to any irrelevant condition at all. Paragraph 12 of the
said judgment reads as follows: - While imposing conditions on an accused
who approaches the court under Section 438 of
the Code, the Court should be extremely chary
in imposing the conditions which are not
called for at all. There is no manner of
doubt that the conditions to be imposed under
Section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh,
onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the
very object of grant of anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of the code. - This Court in Ramesh Kumar considered this issue in an
exhaustive manner. This Court noted that a disquieting trend
emerging over the years which has gained pace in recent times has
necessitated the rendering of the opinion. It has been found that
in multiple cases where FIRs were lodged under Section 420 IPC,
judicial proceedings initiated by the accused under Section 438
CrPC are unwittingly being transformed into processes for recovery
of the quantum of money allegedly cheated and the courts driven to
impose conditions for deposit/payment as prerequisite for grant of
pre-arrest bail.
14.1. After referring to various decisions, this Court observed
that in the context of grant of bail, all such conditions that
would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the
investigating officer or the trial court, would be relevant and
should only be imposed. However, inclusion of a condition for
payment of money by the accused for bail tends to create an
impression that bail can be secured by depositing money alleged to
have been cheated. This is really not the purpose and intent of the
provision for grant of bail.
14.2. Clarifying the position, this Court observed that in
exceptional cases, such as, where an allegation of misappropriation
of public money by the accused is levelled and the accused while
seeking indulgence of the court to have his liberty secured,
volunteers to make good the money allegedly misappropriated by him,
it would be open to the Court concerned to consider whether in the
larger public interest the money allegedly misappropriated should
be allowed to be deposited before the application for anticipatory
bail or regular bail, as the case may be, is taken up for
consideration. However, such an effort would not be warranted in
cases of private disputes where private parties complain of their
money being involved in the offence of cheating.
15. This Court in Gajanan Dattatray Gore held as follows:
24. Be that at it may, now we have made
ourselves very clear that there shall not be
a single order that the High Courts and the
Trial Courts shall pass for grant of regular
bail or anticipatory bail on the basis of any
accused or his/her family members giving an
undertaking to deposit a particular amount.
The plea shall be decided strictly on merits
in accordance with law. If the case is made
out on merits the court may exercise its
discretion and if no case is made out on
merits, the court shall reject the plea for
regular bail or anticipatory bail as the case
may be. However, in any circumstances the
High Courts or trial courts shall not pass a
conditional order of regular bail or
anticipatory bail.
16. Though the High Court had relied upon a judgment of this
Court in Subhelal Alias Sushil Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh
(2025) 5 SCC 140, that was a case of crypto currency scam in which
almost 2,000 investors had lost their money in the scheme floated
by the accused persons. In the peculiar facts of that case whether
the interest of a large number of depositors were involved, this
Court directed the accused to deposit an amount of 35,00,000/- ₹
(rupees thirty five lakhs only) before the Trial Court. However,
while directing so, this Court observed as under:
26. We are conscious of the fact that we have
been condemning the High Courts when they
impose such conditions. But here is a case
wherein we are compelled to impose such
conditions having regard to the peculiar
facts of this case.
17. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the decision
in Subhelal Alias Sushil Sahu, would not be attracted to the facts
of this case.
18. When the High Court came to the conclusion that a case for
anticipatory bail is made out, it ought not to have imposed such a
condition as a pre-condition for bail.
19. Having regard to the above and on due consideration, we set
aside the condition imposed by the High Court for depositing
₹4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crores only) by the appellants as
extracted supra, as a condition precedent for grant of pre-arrest
bail.
20. We feel that the undertaking given by the appellants before
this Court in terms of our order dated 13.04.2026 that appellants
would not transfer the properties any further, is actually
redundant in as much as the Civil Court in the pending civil suit
has already directed by order dated 20.12.2024 that the defendants
(appellants herein) shall not alienate the suit property any
further. Therefore, the undertaking given by the appellants in
terms of the order of this Court would stand merged with the order
of the Civil Court.
21. Since investigation is complete, we direct the prosecution to
submit charge sheet within 2 weeks from today whereafter the
parties may avail their respective remedies in accordance with law.
22. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
………………….J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
………………….J.
(ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)
NEW DELHI;
July 28, 2026.
IZ
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4913/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-2025
in CRMM No. 22415/2022 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh]
RENU MEHTA & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 84434/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 28-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. PS Patwalia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR
Mr. Agam Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Mohd Irshad, A.A.G.
Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Chetan Manchanda, Adv.
Mr. R.K. Jain, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Mansi Jain, Adv.
Ms. Bhoomika, Adv.
Ms. Shivangi Singh Rawat, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(IRAMNAZ) (CHETNA BALOONI)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)
10
Source