Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
I. Glaskasden Grace & Others
Versus
Inspector of Police & Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.419 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7138 of 2008)
Decided on : 03-03-2009
JT 2002 (1) SC 291; (2000) 2 SCC 66 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This appeal relates to relates to grounds of anticipatory bail granted by the High Court which the appellant terms as unreasonable and onerous.
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 the title deeds of property worth Rs. 20,00,000/- standing either in their name or in the name of third parties and also on their executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-with two sureties for the likesum to his satisfaction.
Finding of the Court:
Conditions imposed by High Court are unreasonable and onerous.
Result:
Appeal allowed. 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 2.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Original Petition No. 21442 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 for on the alleged grounds of imposing conditions which are unreasonable as submitted before us.
3. A complaint was filed by one B. Nagalakshmi W/o Balagovindarajulu, Complainant Respondent No. 2 contending inter alia that she approached one M. Mani, a land broker, for the purchase of house sites bearing Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Sasi West Extension, Vilakrichi Village, Sern Nagar, Coimbatore. Mani informed that K. Sakthivel is the owner of site No. 12, and other site owners reside at Tiruppur and Selvapuram. Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar and sale deed of 4 sites were shown, which reflected that the land were in the name of appellants. K. Sakthivel made assurance to the complainant that he will arrange for the sale of the four sites to her by the site owners by making them to execute a sale deed in her favour. The total sale amount for the four sites was fixed at Rs. 62,62,000/-. As alleged when the complainant came forward to tender white money for the entire amount, the accused Sakthivel asked her to tender white money only for Rs. 7,72,700/-and the rest in black, and represented that he would execute the sale deed in her favour only then. Accordingly, she had parted a sum of Rs. 7,72,700/- through four demand drafts and cash of Rs. 54,89,300/-to the accused, on the day of registration and got the sale deed executed in her favour on 15.05.2007. Subsequently, on 03.06.2007 when the respondent No. 2 attempted to put up a boundary around the land, she came to know that the said four sites originally belonged to some other person.
4. It further transpires that accused/appellants conspired and forged the encumbrance certificate and impersonated themselves as original owners of the house sites, prepared a false sale deed and registered the same in favour of complainant and cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 62,62,000/-.
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 their arrest in the aforesaid case registered under Sections 120B, 466, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 IPC filed a petition in the High Court 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 the title deeds of property worth Rs. 20,00,000/- standing either in their name or in the name of third parties and also on their executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-with two sureties for the likesum 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 not only unreasonable and onerous but the same also amounts to putting a fetter on the right of appellants being admitted to bail, in terms of the order passed.
9. The said petition filed by the appellants was placed before this Court whereupon inter alia the following order was passed on 13.8.2008.
"Issue notice.
However, it is made clear that, in the event, it is found that the petitioners are not otherwise entitled to grant of an order of anticipatory bail, this Court may pass an appropriate order.
In the meantime, only that portion of the order whereby conditions have been imposed for grant of anticipatory bail
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.