2009(2) Supreme 319
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Ramathal & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Inspector of Police & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5668 of 2008)
Decided on : 03-03-2009
JT 2002 (1) SC 291; (2000) 2 SCC 66 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. The appellants and another person namely Karuppasami are legal heirs of one Raju and they owned a house located at Coimbatore.
2.Respondent no. 2 negotiated with the appellants for purchase of the house for a price of Rs. 35.5 lakhs. An agreement was signed and an advance of Rs. Rs. 25.5 Lakhs was paid on 14.3.2007 as a part of sale consideration upon the accused stating that the original documents would be handed over in a month’s time on paying the balance amount. This was not done. Instead, possession of the house was given on further payment of Rs.7 lakhs on 7.8.2007.
3.On enquiry the complainant came to know that the original documents and title deeds had been placed with Sowdambiha Chit Fund at Coimbatore, where they are required to pay a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs including interest amount.
4. It further transpires that the appellants had executed a sale deed in respect of said property in favour of Chitra wife of Sivaji and Kumudha wife of Chinnasamy in 1998. The appellants also allegedly concealed the fact that they received a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- from Punjab National Bank by means of pledging the documents and that a decree was passed against Kumudha and Chitra regarding the pledged properties.
5. The appellants apprehending arrest in the aforesaid case registered under Section 120B and 420, IPC filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code seeking anticipatory bail.
6. High Court passed an order granting anticipatory bail as prayed for on condition that in the event of arrest, the appellants shall be enlarged on bail on their depositing Rs. 32,00,000/- to the credit of Crime No. 56 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Coimbatore and also on their executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to his satisfaction.
7.The appellants are aggrieved due to imposition of alleged onerous condition for grant of anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court :
Impugned order cannot be sustained.
Result : Matter remitted back.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by a part of the direction contained in the Order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Original Petition No. 16601 of 2008 whereby the High Court allowed the application filed by the appellants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the “Code”) and granted the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed. The appellants are aggrieved due to imposition of alleged onerous condition for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. A complaint was filed by one A. Nizam Bash S/o Late M. Abdul Salam, Respondent No. 2 contending inter alia that the appellants and another person namely Karuppasami are legal heirs of one Raju and that they owned a house which is located at Coimbatore. In the said complaint, the Complainant alleged that on coming to know that the said house bearing No. 34 to 39, Ward No. 62, P.V. Krishnan Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore is open and ready for sale, the Complainant on behalf of the son-in-law who is working as Engineer and residing with his family in Malaysia negotiated with Mrs. Ramathal, wife of late Raju and his family members pursuant to which an agreement was entered into on behalf of him/son-in-law and daughter for consideration of Rs. 35.5 Lakhs as desired by the accused persons. A sum of Rs. 25.5 Lakhs was advanced on 14.3.2007 as a part of sale consideration and the deal was closed upon the accused stating that the original documents were given by their father at Thirupur for safety purposes and that after receiving the said documents the same would be handed over to the complainant and that they would receive the balance amount within one month’s time. An agreement to that effect was also made. However, the accused persons failed to do so and instead received a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as advance on 7.8.2007 and handed over only the possession of the house. The papers and the documents relating to the house were not handed over to the Complainant and on enquiry made, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the original documents and title deeds had been placed with Sowdambiha Chit Fund at Coimbatore, where they are required to pay a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs including interest amount.
4. It further transpires that the said accused Ramathal and her husband late Raju executed the sale deed in respect of said property in favour of Chitra wife of Sivaji and Kumudha wife of Chinnasamy in 1998. The aforesaid fact of alleged fraudulent transfer of property was concealed. They also allegedly concealed the fact that they received a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- from Punjab National Bank by means of pledging the documents and that a decree was passed against Kumudha and Chitra regarding the pledged properties. It is thus alleged that the accused concealed the real fact and fraudulently received a sum of Rs. 32.5 lakhs as sale consideration and thereby cheated the complainant and his son-in- law and his wife.
5. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered treating the said complaint as the First Information Report.
6. The appellants herein apprehending arrest in the aforesaid case registered under Section 120B and 420, IPC filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code seeking anticipatory bail.
7. On perusal of the submissions made and material on record, the High Court passed an order granting anticipatory bail as prayed for on condition that in the event of arrest, the appellants shall be enlarged on bail on their depositing Rs. 32,00,000/- to the credit of Crime No. 56 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Coimbatore and also on their executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to his satisfaction.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants approached this Court on the ground that the conditions imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail are
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.