IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44808 of 2007 PARWEZ KHAN Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Murad Ahmad For the Petitioner : M/S Y.V. Giri, Raju Giri. For Opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Amir Alam & Mr. Mukesh Kr. For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 16.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for Opposite party no. 2. Opposite party no. 2 filed Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case No. 128 of 2007 against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420 of the Penal Code, on the allegation that the petitioner as a film producer asked the Opposite party no. 2 for Rupees two lacs in lieu of a role to the younger brother of Opposite party no. 2 in the proposed film to be produced. The petitioner further promised that either on the release of the film or by 30.1.2007 the money would be returned. The agreement was signed by both the parties. Rupees two lacs were given. The informant was not aware if the film had been released, but the money has not been returned till the due date. The petitioner was taken into custody. He was released on regular bail on 10.9.2007 by the Court of ADJ, FTC IV, Siwan. Learned counsel assails the order of conditional bail. He submits that once the learned Judge was prima facie of the opinion on the submission on behalf of the petitioner that there 2 were interpolation in the original agreement by subsequent insertion of any due date for payment, there was no occasion for him to pass a conditional order requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50,000/- and to invest Rs. 1,50,000/- in interest earning security subject to result of the case. It is additionally submitted that the original agreement never contained any clause for return of the money by 30.1.2007 and which was to be returned only after release of the film. He relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 6 SCC 196 (Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. & ors.) that while deciding a bail application, the Court cannot extend its jurisdiction in a manner so as to decide a civil dispute between the parties. If the petitioner was held to be guilty of the offence under Section 406, 420 of the Penal Code, the law will take its own course with regard to punishment. The criminal court could not arrogate to itself powers essentially to be exercised by a civil forum. Learned counsel for Opposite party no. 2 urged that once the petitioner acknowledged that he had taken a sum of Rs. two lacs, the rest of the issues become irrelevant and he is liable to return the money. The jurisdiction of a Court to grant bail or not to grant bail, rests on standard parameters of the nature of the allegations, punishment that may follow, the propensity to crime, if released on bail, the possibility of hindering investigation, 3 interfering with the witnesses, tampering of evidence etc. While granting bail the court cannot impose conditions in a manner, which would be the jurisdiction of a civil forum even before fixation of the guilt of the person accused of an offence. In the facts of the present case, this Court is satisfied that once the learned Judge himself recorded a prima facie finding (which of course has to be read as confined for the purpose of bail only) that there were interpolations in the original agreement and which was in fact the turning point for the liability being fixed on the petitioner this Court is satisfied that the order of conditional bail becomes difficult to sustain. The last paragraph of the order dated 10.9.2007 imposing condition of financial deposits for the purpose of bail is, therefore, set aside. In the limited nature of controversy, let the trial be expedited. The application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)