The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to a Rajasthan couple facing criminal charges that, according to the judges, clearly arose from a civil dispute.
The bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan noted that the case highlighted the dangers of stretching criminal law into matters of contract and recovery.
Significantly, Justice Pardiwala, who had recently faced headlines for sharp criticism of an Allahabad High Court judge in a similar context, struck a calmer tone this time. Referring to his earlier remarks, he said during the hearing: “This time I am not going to lose my cool.” His previous observations were formally withdrawn after Chief Justice B. R. Gavai urged reconsideration.
Background Of Case
The FIR alleged that the couple had purchased plywood worth over ₹16 lakh but paid only ₹3.5 lakh, leaving an unpaid balance of around ₹12.59 lakh. On this basis, they were booked for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy.
The Rajasthan High Court had denied them anticipatory bail, agreeing with the prosecution’s argument that granting protection could obstruct recovery of the outstanding amount.
Court’s Reasoning
The apex court disagreed with this reasoning, pointing out that once a sale transaction has taken place, the issue becomes a civil dispute. “There can be no criminal breach of trust once there is a sale transaction,” the bench said, rejecting the idea that police could be used as a recovery mechanism.
The judges observed that the High Court had too readily accepted the state’s submission that custodial pressure was needed for repayment, “According to the state, the police machinery is required for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. The High Court very willingly accepted such submission… We need not say anything further.”
Order Of The Court
The bench ultimately set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order and extended anticipatory bail to the couple. It stressed that criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to become a tool for resolving purely civil or commercial disputes.
The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s consistent stance that civil disagreements should not be criminalised, and that criminal law must not be invoked as a shortcut for financial recovery.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
