Whether Criminal Court will act as a recovery agent in order to solve the dues between Private Parties?

A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent in order to solve the dues between the private party, and that too, without any trial. In exceptional cases such as where an allegation of misappropriation of public money by the accused is leveled and the accused while seeking indulgence of the court to have his/her liberty secured/restored volunteers to account for the whole or any part of the public money allegedly misappropriated by him/her, it would be open to the concerned court to consider whether in the larger public interest the money misappropriated should be allowed to be deposited before the application for anticipatory bail/bail is taken up for final consideration. After all, no court should be averse to putting public money back in the system if the situation is conducive therefore. This approach should be in the larger interest of the community. However, such an approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties do FIR for their money being involved in the offence of cheating. The nature of dispute between the parties, which is predominantly civil in nature, the process of criminal law cannot be pressed into service for settling a civil dispute. Willingness of accused to deposit money as bail condition must be considered only in cases involving public money; not in private cases.