ORDER Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. We have a batch of petitions before us, arising from different nature of offences from dowry to Section 420, IPC to Section 376, IPC and POCSO Act. The common aspect in all these cases is that one particular learned Judge of the High Court has granted bail on condition on deposit of substantive sums of money without consideration of the requirements of bail dependent on the nature of offences. It is trite to say that bail cannot per se be granted if a person can afford to deposit the money or his capacity to pay. That is what seems to have happened. Since there is no proper consideration, it is also difficult for us to analyze what weighed with the learned Judge while granting bail and it is certainly not the jurisdiction of this Court to be first or a second Court of bail. 4. Learned Amicus has expressed his concern that such an approach gives rise to an impression among the accused that bail is admissible on being able to pay the money to obtain the said bail by seeking deposit of different amounts. 5. We are thus, of the view that in all these matters the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the matters remitted back for fresh consideration before another learned Judge who would analyze each case keeping in mind the factual scenario, the nature of offence and the settled principles for grant of bail. 6. In view of the fact that the orders were of the nature of anticipatory bail and we had granted interim protection to the extent of the requirement of deposit of the amount, the interim protection granted by this Court would continue till fresh consideration is made by the High Court, making it clear that this interim protection is not a reflection on the merits of the controversy of each of the parties but was necessitated on account of monetary condition imposed for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP [CRL.] NO.6415/2022 and criminal Appeal arising out SLP [CRL.] No.5884/2022 submitted that though no interim protection has been granted by this Court, the same benefit may be extended to them as well, particularly in view of the nature of offence alleged. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP [CRL.] NO.6415/2022 and criminal Appeal arising out SLP [CRL.] No.5884/2022 submitted that though no interim protection has been granted by this Court, the same benefit may be extended to them as well, particularly in view of the nature of offence alleged. We accordingly grant interim protection from arrest to these appellants as well, till the conclusion of the bail applications before the High Court. 8. At the request of learned counsel for the State, we direct that all the appellants before us cooperate with the investigation as interim protection is already enuring in their benefit. 9. We also clarify that in view of our judgment in Dharmesh Alias Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jagdishbhai Alias Jagabhai Bhagubhai Ratadia & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat (2021) 7 SCC 198 there is no question of victim compensation, as there cannot be such a criteria at the stage of grant of bail. 10. The appeals are accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving parties to bear their own costs. We place on record our appreciation for the good assistance rendered by the learned Amicus curiae Dr. Manish Singhvi.