Bihar HC Rejects Agro Dealer’s Bail-Condition Challenge After She Agreed To Pay ₹39.54 Lakh But Had Not Paid The First ₹7 Lakh Installment

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner could challenge as onerous a payment condition fixed pursuant to her own request to pay the outstanding dues by instalments.

The court held

The Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, holding that the petitioner could not challenge a payment arrangement made at her own request and had failed to comply with its first-instalment condition.

It also directed

It directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court forthwith, together with the trial court record, if any.

01Facts

Shobha Kumari sought to quash an order dated 27 June 2016 in A.B.P. No. 295 of 2016, arising from a case registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) IPC.

p. 1

The High Court understood that the petitioner had requested time to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 39,54,984.87, and that the payment schedule was fixed on that basis. She received provisional anticipatory bail subject to depositing Rs. 7,00,000 as the first instalment, but had not deposited that amount when the matter was considered.

pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner could challenge as onerous a payment condition fixed pursuant to her own request to pay the outstanding dues by instalments.

p. 5

ii.Whether the petitioner’s non-compliance with the first-instalment condition warranted dismissal of her petition.

p. 6

03Law Applied

The Court considered the principle that excessive or onerous bail conditions should not be imposed, while noting that whether a condition is onerous depends on the circumstances of the case.

pp. 3–5

It also relied on the principle, reflected in Kundan Singh and Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1571, that an accused who voluntarily offers or undertakes to meet a condition cannot later resile from it and characterise it as onerous.

pp. 4–5

Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 15 SCC 570, was cited by the petitioner in support of her challenge.

p. 3

The underlying FIR alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) IPC.

p. 1

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 406 Section 409 Section 420

04Reasoning

The Court found that the payment schedule was not imposed unilaterally by the trial court: it was fixed following the petitioner’s request to pay the stated dues within six months.

p. 5

It therefore held that she could not agree to the arrangement and subsequently challenge it as onerous.

p. 5

Further, despite receiving provisional anticipatory bail subject to depositing Rs. 7,00,000 as the first instalment, she had not complied with that condition and continued to enjoy the benefit of bail. The Court treated this conduct as disregard of the condition on which the concession had been granted.

p. 6