Acquittal entitles accused to refund of bail deposits; withholding same violates Article 14.

The applicant, a 71-year-old senior citizen, was implicated in Crime No. 62/2016 for offences under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the IPC.

On 06.04.2016, the High Court granted him anticipatory bail subject to a condition of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- with the Zila Panchayat, Betul.

Following a trial, the applicant was acquitted of all charges on 05.07.2023.

Despite his acquittal and several representations made to the authorities for a refund, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to release the amount.

Notably, a co-accused on identical footing was refunded the principal amount along with interest.

The applicant subsequently filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

1. Whether the continued retention of a bail deposit by the State after the acquittal of the accused amounts to arbitrary action and unjust enrichment.

2. Whether the denial of refund and interest to the applicant, while granting the same to a similarly situated co-accused, violates the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Constitutional principle of Equality before Law under Article 14, which mandates that similarly situated persons must be treated alike unless there is a reasonable classification.

A deposit for bail is a temporary security to ensure cooperation and is neither punitive nor compensatory; therefore, once the proceedings terminate in acquittal, the legal basis for retention ceases.

The court reasoned that the deposit made by the applicant was a condition precedent for bail and not a fine or penalty.

Since the trial resulted in acquittal and the applicant was discharged from all bail and surety liabilities, the State had no statutory authority to retain the funds.

The court observed that the respondents failed to provide any "cogent or legally sustainable reason" for withholding the applicant's money while having already refunded the co-accused.

This discrepancy was deemed "hostile discrimination" and a violation of Article 14.

The court noted that while interest may be subject to administrative policy, the principle of parity requires the authorities to consider the applicant's claim for interest in light of the benefit already extended to the co-accused.

The court directed Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to release the principal sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- within 45 days.

It further ordered the competent authority to pass a reasoned order regarding the grant of interest based on parity with the co-accused within the same period.

Finally, it directed that if the amount is not released within the stipulated timeframe, the applicant shall be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of expiry until actual payment.