Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

R Chandrasekaran vs The State Represented By The Inspector ... on 27 October, 2021

Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka

                                                      1



                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1334­1335 OF 2021
                         (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 6768­6769 of 2019)


     R. CHANDRASEKARAN                                           ……APPELLANT(S)


                                          VERSUS


     THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE
     INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. ETC.                             .…..RESPONDENT(S)



                                                   ORDER

Leave granted.

These appeals are directed against the orders passed by the High Court dated 13.08.2018 followed with 21.02.2019 for a limited purpose as reflected in para 5 of the Order dated 13.08.2018 calling upon the appellant to deposit an additional sum of Rs.20 lakhs to the de facto complainant within 10 days for the purpose of grant of bail Signature Not Verified under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Digitally signed by

NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2021.10.29 16:16:14 IST Reason:

Para 5 of the order impugned dated 13.08.2018 is reproduced as under:­ 2 “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the learned counsel for the petitioner had handed over Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/­ to the learned counsel for the intervenor and had undertaken to pay the balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ to the de facto complainant within 10 days, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.” The case of the prosecution is that the second accused (A­2) had given power of attorney to the appellant for sale of his property. On the strength of power of attorney extended by A­2, the present appellant entered into a sale agreement with the de facto complainant and advance payment of Rs.40 lakhs against the total sale consideration of Rs.73,66,000/­ was paid to the second accused. However, later the second accused (A­2) cancelled the power of attorney and hence the sale deed could not be executed. In the facts and circumstances, the FIR No.240/2018 dated 04.05.2018 came to be registered at Police Station Mannargudi Town, District Tiruvarur for offences punishable under Section 420 IPC.

The indisputed fact is that a sum of Rs.20 lakhs has been made over by the appellant to the de facto complainant as indicated in the order of the High Court dated 21.02.2019 and because of non­ compliance of the additional sum of Rs.20 lakhs which has to be deposited within ten days of the Order dated 13.8.2018, by a subsequent order dated 21.2.2019, bail granted to him was cancelled. 3

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that imposition of condition of depositing a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to the de facto complaint for grant of bail is an onerous condition and legally not sustainable but since Rs.20 lakhs have been made over by the appellant to the de facto complainant, as being recorded by the High Court under its Order dated 13.08.2018, we consider it appropriate to hold that the direction of the High Court to deposit a further sum of Rs.20 lakhs to the de facto complainant is unreasonable and deserves to be set aside.

Accordingly, the order passed by the High Court dated 21.02.2019 is hereby set aside and the condition of depositing a further sum of Rs.20 lakhs under Order dated 17.08.2018 being onerous is hereby deleted.

The appeals in the above terms stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………J. (AJAY RASTOGI) …………………………J. (ABHAY S. OKA) New Delhi 27th October, 2021 4 ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6768-6769/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and orders dated 21-02-2019 in CRLOP No. 3232/2019 & 13-08-2018 in CRLOP No. 18750/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras) R CHANDRASEKARAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.ETC. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.105970/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.105976/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.105979/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 27-10-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T.Arachna, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR.

Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv.

Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv.

Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv.

Ms. Shalini Mishra, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The Criminal Appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 

(NIRMALA NEGI)                                  (BEENA JOLLY)
COURT MASTER (SH)                             COURT MASTER (NSH)
               (Signed order is placed on the file)