JUDGMENT : (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the part of the order dated 24.8.2023 passed in B.P. No.1391 of 2023 passed by learned A.J.C.-III, Ranchi in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.465 of 2022 registered for the offence under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 of IPC, whereby the provisional bail has been directed to the petitioner on the condition to pay Rs.20 lacs on or before 5.10.2023 either through Demand Draft or through online transfer as per the convenience of both the sides and the balance amount to be paid on or before 22.11.2023 and the said provisional bail shall be confirmed on the payment of the amount mentioned in the bail order. 2. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the aforesaid condition, the petitioner has been released on provisional bail on 24.08.2023 and thereafter the petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court and this Court has issued notice upon the respondent no.5 by the order dated 5.10.2023 and interim protection was granted. He submits that the informant happened to be Managing Director of the company namely, SIPL entered into an agreement with the petitioner in the capacity of Managing Partner of the firm namely M/s Vinayak Construction on 18.10.2021 for the investment with regard to an agreement provided to the petitioner by the Railways and pursuant to that the informant is said to have paid a sum of Rs.55 lacs and out of that the petitioner has returned a sum of Rs.8 lacs (eight lacs). He submits that the allegation is made that Rs.47,12,908/-was not returned and for that the FIR has been registered. He submits that thereafter the petitioner was taken into custody on 21.7.2023 and the bail application was moved and the provisional bail was granted on the aforesaid conditions. He submits that the petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner by the father of the petitioner. He further submits that for the dispute in question the informant has already filed a commercial suit in the court of Commercial Court which is pending. He submits that in view of that for grant of bail such condition is very harsh and in view of that this Court may interfere and modify the said condition. He further submits that for the dispute in question the informant has already filed a commercial suit in the court of Commercial Court which is pending. He submits that in view of that for grant of bail such condition is very harsh and in view of that this Court may interfere and modify the said condition. He relied in the case of Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 779 wherein at paragraph no.4 it has been held as under: 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration, while considering an application for bail are the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial. 3. On this ground, he submits that the said order may kindly be modified. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that investigation is still going on. He submits that it appears that on the undertaking of the father of the petitioner such order has been passed by the learned court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that undertaking was given before the court by the father of the petitioner and in view of that the said order has been passed as such, there is no need of interference by this Court. She further submits that in the commercial proceeding the petitioner is not appearing. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that undertaking was given before the court by the father of the petitioner and in view of that the said order has been passed as such, there is no need of interference by this Court. She further submits that in the commercial proceeding the petitioner is not appearing. She submits that if the undertaking is there, the judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others is not applicable. On this ground, she submits that the said order may not be modified. 6. In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the impugned order dated 24.8.2023 whereby the provisional bail has been granted to the petitioner on the condition as narrated in the prayer portion of this writ petition as stated supra. It is an admitted fact that a sum of Rs.8 lac has been returned out of Rs.55 lacs to the informant. Thus, the FIR was registered for not refunding the remaining amount by the petitioner. The undertaking was given by the father of the petitioner for such payment and the undertaking is brought on record at page no.118 of the petition. In paragraph no.2 as per the instruction of the Court was typed, however, it is cut. This Court is not making any comment on that cutting. 7. The undertaking was given by the father of the petitioner for such payment and the undertaking is brought on record at page no.118 of the petition. In paragraph no.2 as per the instruction of the Court was typed, however, it is cut. This Court is not making any comment on that cutting. 7. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2023) 7 SCC 461 that criminal proceeding is not for realization of the disputed dues and thus, a criminal court exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realize the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial and it is further held, since denial of bail amount to deprivation of personal liberty, the court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of section 438 Cr.PC and thus, the conditions to be imposed under section 438 Cr.PC cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of grant of anticipatory bail and further that law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved and therefore, as a presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that the words “any condition“ used in section 438 Cr.P.C should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that is chooses to impose, but any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. 8. In regular bail cases as well as anticipatory bail cases the orders are required to be passed considering the parameter of granting bail as well as anticipatory bail. The condition put by the learned court appears to be not in accordance with law. The condition imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. In the context of grant of bail all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer /court and unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance. The condition imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. In the context of grant of bail all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer /court and unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance. However, inclusion of a condition for payment of money for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail. 9. In the case in hand, the petitioner was in custody and he was released on provisional bail on the condition of payment of Rs.20 lacs and in view of well settled provisions of law for grant of bail this condition is harsh which cannot survive in the eye of law. It is open to a Court to grant or refuse the prayer for bail, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration, while considering an application for bail are, the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction; the nature of materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tempering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviours and standing of the accused; the larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A Criminal Court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/ anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realize the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interfered in a case arising out of B.A.No.4646 of 2020 wherein the coordinate Bench has said that the petitioner has even undertaken to pay the amount and inspite of that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the condition in S.L.P. (Cr.) No.1274 of 2021. 10. 10. In view of above facts considering the settled law with regard to grant of bail, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner on the said condition appears to be harsh as such, said condition with regard to the payment of Rs.20 lacs and other condition for further payment will not sustain in the eye of law and, in view of that, the said part of the order is hereby set aside. 11. The provisional bail granted to the petitioner by the learned court is further extended for four weeks, and the matter is remitted back to the learned court concerned to hear the petitioner on merit and decide the said bail application in accordance with law. 12. It was pointed out in course of the argument that for recovery of the amount the commercials cases have already been registered and it is pending before the Commercial Court, Ranchi in Commercial Suit No.226 of 2024[Ajay SinghV. Pushpraj]and Commercial Suit No.202of 2024[Ajay Singh v. Vishal Kumar and Others] and Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that the petitioner will appear in that case.