S.Periammal and ors. Vs. Insp.of Police - Court Judgment |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Aug-02-2013 |
| J. CHELAMESWAR and J. CHELAMESWAR |
| S.Periammal and ors. |
| insp.of Police |
in the supreme court of india criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal no.1141 of2013(arising out of slp(crl.) no.2196/2012) s. periammal and ors. appellant(s) :versus: the inspector of police respondent(s) order heard the learned counsel for the parties. leave granted. the grievance of the appellants is that for the charges that are levelled against them which are under sections 420, 463, 464 and 471 read with section 120-b of the indian penal code, (for a dispute involving an amount of rs.25 lakhs) the high court has directed the appellants in paragraph 5 of the impugned order to deposit rs.20 lakhs as a condition of granting anticipatory bail. it is submitted that the condition is too stiff and the criminal proceeding is almost converted into a recovery proceeding. the counsel for the complainant justifies the condition, but the counsel for the state leaves it to this court to pass appropriate orders. in the circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the condition imposed in paragraph 5 of the impugned order passed by the high court. .........................j (h.l. gokhale) .........................j (j.chelameswar) new delhi; august 2, 2013.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1141 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2196/2012) S. PERIAMMAL AND ORS. Appellant(s) :VERSUS: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent(s) ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. The grievance of the appellants is that for the charges that are levelled against them which are under Sections 420, 463, 464 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, (for a dispute involving an amount of Rs.25 lakhs) the High Court has directed the appellants in paragraph 5 of the impugned order to deposit Rs.20 lakhs as a condition of granting anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the condition is too stiff and the criminal proceeding is almost converted into a recovery proceeding. The counsel for the complainant justifies the condition, but the counsel for the State leaves it to this Court to pass appropriate orders. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the condition imposed in paragraph 5 of the impugned order passed by the High Court. .........................J (H.L. GOKHALE) .........................J (J.
CHELAMESWAR) New Delhi; August 2, 2013.