Facts: FIR was lodged against the appellants and others for their alleged involvement in mis-appropriation of stock –Appellants contended that the dispute essentially revolves around contractual liability and is of a civil nature-Arbitration proceeding the matter was under examination. High Court granted interim protection in terms of Section 438 on the condition of deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the complainant Subsequently because of non-deposit of the amount the protection was denied and prayer in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected. Held:“We find that the High Court has not considered the relevant aspects and has also not indicated any reason as to why it felt necessary to direct deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Further the ambit of Section 438 Cr. P.C. as delineated by this Court has not been kept in view. In the circumstances, we set aside the orders of the High Court dated 8.5.2006 and 7.8.2006 and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. Needless to say while dealing with the matter the High Court shall keep in view the principles indicated by this Court relating to Section 438 in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. and the relevance and applicability of the decision in Bal Kishan Das's case while dealing with the application in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C." | 
