LexI. GLASKASDEN GRACE & ORS. versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 990 A I. GLASKASDEN GRACE & ORS. ~ v. ..... INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2009) B MARCH 3, 2009 [S.B, SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Grant of - Case registered u/ss. 120 B, c 466, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420-Application for anticipatory bail -i Grant of, by High Court subject to the applicants depositing title deeds of property worth Rs. 20, 00, 0001- standing in their name or in the name of third party - Correctness of - Held: Order of High Court was very D unreasonable - It should have considered the entire facts of the case including gravity of offence alleged - Hence, matter remitted back to High Court to consider the prayer afresh. The question which arose for consideration in this E appeal was whether the High Court was justified in imposing a condition requiring the appellants to deposit title deeds of property worth Rs.20,00,000/- standing in their name or in the name of third parties while granting ~ them anticipatory bail in the case registered against them , F u/ss. 120 B, 466-468, 471 and 420 IPC. Disposing of the appeal, the Court - HELD: 1.1 The facts and circumstances of the case indicated that receipt of Rs. 62,62,000/- towards sale G consideration of the property was alleged to be on misre1presentation of the fact by the appellants. It is disclosed that the said property originally belonged to ,.. • some other person. The allegations made are serious as it is alleged that accused/appellants conspired and H 990 I. GLASKASDEN GRACE & ORS. v. INSPECTOR OF 991 POLICE & ANR. -r- forged the encumbrance certificate and impersonated A themselves as original owners of the house sites and cheated the respondent No.2-complainant to the tune of Rs.62,62,0001- by preparing a false sale deed and getting it registered in favour of respondent No.2. [Paras 13 and 14] [995-D-F] B ' 1.2. The High Court passed the impugned order with ,, the intention of protecting the interest of the complainant in the matter. The approach of the High Court was incorrect as under the impugned order a very reasonable c •' and onerous condition was laid down by the Court as a condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail. It is not disclosed from the record that the High Court considered the entire facts of the case in proper perspective and • proceeded to dispose of the prayer for anticipatory bail ~ oblivious of the facts of the case and contrary to correct D legal position with regard to law relating to grant of anticipatory bail. The High Court should have considered the entire facts of the case including the gravity of the offence alleged and in the light thereof should have considered the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, E the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted ;. back to the High Court to consider the prayer for ~ anticipatory bail of the appellants afresh in accordance with law taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of the F ·" offence alleged and analyzing the prayer of the appellants. [Paras 15, 17 and 18] [995-G-H; 997-A-D] Amarjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi JT 2002(1) SC 291 and Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi G J ~ 2002 (2) sec 66, referred to. ~ Case Law Reference: JT 2002(1) SC 291 Referred to Para 16 H 992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R. A (2000) 2 sec 66 Referred to Para 16 -\ CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal - No. 419 of 2009. B From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.08 of the High Court Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 16601/2008. K.K. Mani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar and Mayur R. Shah for the Appellants. c V. Kanagaraj, Promila, S. Thananjayan, Gurukrishna Kumar and Srikala Gurukrishna Kumar for the Respondent. •. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted. D 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. E 21442 of 2008 whereby the High Court allowed the application filed by the appellants under Section 438 of the Code of Cririninal Procedure, 1973 (for short the "Code") and granted the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.