Supreme Court: The bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ has disapproved the trend of Courts imposing conditions for deposit or payment of disputed money as a requirement for granting pre-arrest bail in Cheating cases and has observed that, “Inclusion of a condition for payment of money by the applicant 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.” The Court’s opinion came after it noticed the disquieting trend that in multiple cases in the past several months that upon First Information Reports being lodged inter alia under section 420 IPC, judicial proceedings initiated by persons, accused of cheating, to obtain orders under Section 438 CrPC, 1973 are unwittingly being transformed into processes for recovery of the quantum of money allegedly cheated and the courts driven to impose conditions for deposit/payment as pre-requisite for grant of pre-arrest bail. The Court, hence, considered appropriate to remind the High Courts and the Sessions Courts not to be unduly swayed by submissions advanced by counsel on behalf of the accused in the nature of undertakings to keep in deposit/repay any amount while seeking bail under section 438 of the Cr. PC. and incorporating a condition in that behalf for deposit/payment as a pre-requisite for grant of bail.