SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 1729

B.P.SINGH, ARUN KUMAR
Geetha – Appellant
Versus
State of T. N. – Respondent


ORDER :

Arun Kumar, J.

Special leave granted.

2. We have heard counsel for the parties.

3. Application for intervention is allowed.

4. The High Court, by its impugned order, has directed the release of the appellants on bail imposing certain conditions including the condition that the appellants shall pay a sum of Rs 5 lakhs to the complainant in accordance with the time-schedule fixed by the Court.

5. Counsel for the appellants submits that such conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail because the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the case of the respondent complainant is true. It is brought to our notice by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the Court was led to pass the aforesaid order on the basis of certain averments made by the appellants in their affidavit filed before the Court.

6. Rather than going into these questions, we set aside the order of the High Court and direct the High Court to consider the matter afresh for grant of bail to the appellants. It may pass such order as it may think proper in the facts and circumstances of the case but shall not impose a condition for payment of Rs 5 lakhs as imposed under the order impugned.

7. This appeal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top