RAMATHAL & ORS. versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 981 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
, ., 
, 
f 
.. 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 981 
RAMATHAL & ORS. 
v. 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2009) 
MARCH 3, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 438 -
Anticipatory bail - Grant of- Case registered ulss. 120-B and 
420 - Application for anticipatory bail - Grant of, by High 
C 
Court subject to deposit of Rs.32,00,0001- by applicant as also 
execution of personal bond of Rs. 1, 00, 0001- with two sureties 
each - Correctness of - Held: Order of High Court was very 
unreasonable - It should have considered the entire facts of 
the case including gravity of offence alleged - Hence, matter D 
remitted back to High Court to consider the prayer afresh. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in 
imposing a condition while granting anticipatory bail to 
E 
the appellants in the case registered against them ulss. 
120-B and 420 IPC requiring them to deposit 
Rs.32,00,000/- and also execute personal bond of Rs . 
1,00,000/- with two sureties each for the like .sum. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court · 
HELD: 1.1 The facts and circumstances of the case 
indicate that the receipt of Rs. 32.5 lakhs as advance 
towards sale consideration of the property was alleged 
F 
to be on misrepresentation of the fact by the appellants. 
G 
It is also disclosed from the records that the said 
-1 
property is already mortgaged during the year 2004 with 
the Punjab National Bank and that in fact parties have 
already obtained an order of attachment. Even the 
981 
H 
982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 
A documents with regard to the ownership of the property 
are lying with another financial institution from whom the 
appellants received consideration. There appears to be 
hypothecation in respect of the said property which was 
entered into with the private financer. It is alleged that the 
B appellants while entering into the said agreement with the 
complainant never brought to his notice about the 
mortgage of the property. The aforesaid allegations are 
serious but the same are required to be considered by 
the court in accordance with and in the light of correct 
c position of law. [Paras 13 and 14) [986-H; 987-A-D] 
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 
D unreasonable and onerous condition has been 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 
E prayer for anticipatory bail oblivious of the facts of the 
case and contrary to correct 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 
F thereof should have considered the prayer for grant of 
anticipatory bail. Thus, the impugned order is set aside 
and 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 
G and circumstances of the case including the gravity of the 
offence alleged and analyzing the prayer of the appellants 
whether to grant or not to grant the prayer for anticipatory 
bail. [Paras 15, 17 and 18) [987-E; 988-F-G; 989-A-C] 
H 
RAMATHAL & ORS. v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE & 
983 
ANR. 
~ 
Amarjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi JT 2002(1) SC 
A 
, 
' 
291 and Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi 
2002 (2) sec 66, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
JT 2002(1) SC 291 
(2000) 2 sec 66 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Para 16 
B 
Para 16 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 418 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.08 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 16601 of 
2008. 
c 
K.K. Mani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar and Mayur R. Shah for the 
0 
Appellants. 
V. Kanagaraj, Promila, S. Thananjayan, Gurukrishna 
Kumar and Srikala Gurukrishna Kumar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The present appeal is filed by the appellants being 
aggrieved by a part of the direction contain
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.