The Supreme Court refuses to grant anticipatory bail in case of failure of payment of bank guarantee and obligations arising out of the agreements.

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals made by the appellants while refusing to grant anticipatory bail in case of failure of payment of bank guarantee and obligations arising out of the  agreements in case of Arvind Tiwary  v State of Bihar and Another. There were three criminal appeal having similar questions and hence a common judgment was delivered.

The facts of the first case centered on a miller, who was to pay a bank guarantee which would be equal to the valuation of the paddy. Had an inability arisen, while furnishing such guarantee, pledging of an immovable property which is unencumbered should be given to him as an option. Although, the miller had  to provide a minimum bank guarantee.

The second case revolved around a bank guarantee regarding valuation of paddy. Also an option of pledging an immovable property was afforded. While in the third case, no such requirement to furnish bank guarantee was necessary instead  security was to be furnished as insisted upon  by the agreements. The need to furnish bank guarantee hence was not compulsory rather it was a substitute to the immovable property  which was unencumbered.

The millers had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court of Judicature at Patna on upon  being charged of misappropriation of the sum which was challenged by the State/Corporation. The Apex Court rejected to cancel orders which granted the anticipatory bail instead further modified the orders of granting such anticipatory bails  by imposing certain conditions that if upon failing to comply with such conditions,  would lead to the cancellation of the anticipatory bail along with the issuance of non-bailable warrants against such persons, while permitting the corporation to take necessary steps for securing its interest.