Sanjeev Nagpaul & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3379 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3379 of 2000)
Petitioner: Sanjeev Nagpaul & Anr.
Respondent: State of Tamil Nadu
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3379 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3379 of 2000)
Judges: K.T THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 23, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 438, 439 – Anticipatory bail – FIR mentioning offences under Sections 457, 380, 408, 420 and 120-B IPC – Allegations showing the dispute to be of civil nature – Anticipatory bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi so as to approach Madras High Court – No bail yet granted. Held that though the position is settled that if offences are committed on basis of civil transaction, criminal liability is not denuded, looking into nature of transactions, bail granted on condition. (Paras 3 to 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants have been arrayed as accused in an FIR which was lodged by respondent no. 2. They moved the High Court of Madras for anticipatory bail but the same was rejected by the impugned order.
3. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that though offences under Sections 457, 380, 408, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code have been men-tioned in the FIR the allegations would show that the dispute between the second respondent and the appellants are purely of civil nature. Mr. Gopal Subramonium, learned senior Counsel for the second respondent submitted that if criminal offences are committed on the basis of civil transactions that cannot denude of its criminal liability. The legal position is well settled and it need not be repeated here.
4. We may note that appellants have obtained an order of antici-patory bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 20.8.1999 that appellants shall not be arrested during the time they have to approach the Court at Madras, for a duration of 15 days. The appellants are at large even now and no arrest was effected consequent upon an order passed by this Court.
5. Looking at the transactions between the parties we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them on some conditions. We make it clear that we make reference to the transactions only for the purpose of considering whether pre-arrest bail can be granted or not. Accordingly, we direct that in the event of appellants being arrested they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Appellants shall abide by the following conditions:
1. they shall be present at such place and at such time as may be directed by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interro-gation. If pursuant to such interrogation any recovery of arti-cles are needed the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to do so and such recovery would be deemed to have been effected while the appellants were in custody; and
2. They shall attend the court on being summoned or required by the court.
This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants have been arrayed as accused in an FIR which was lodged by respondent no. 2. They moved the High Court of Madras for anticipatory bail but the same was rejected by the impugned order.
3. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that though offences under Sections 457, 380, 408, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code have been men-tioned in the FIR the allegations would show that the dispute between the second respondent and the appellants are purely of civil nature. Mr. Gopal Subramonium, learned senior Counsel for the second respondent submitted that if criminal offences are committed on the basis of civil transactions that cannot denude of its criminal liability. The legal position is well settled and it need not be repeated here.
4. We may note that appellants have obtained an order of antici-patory bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 20.8.1999 that appellants shall not be arrested during the time they have to approach the Court at Madras, for a duration of 15 days. The appellants are at large even now and no arrest was effected consequent upon an order passed by this Court.
5. Looking at the transactions between the parties we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them on some conditions. We make it clear that we make reference to the transactions only for the purpose of considering whether pre-arrest bail can be granted or not. Accordingly, we direct that in the event of appellants being arrested they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Appellants shall abide by the following conditions:
1. they shall be present at such place and at such time as may be directed by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interro-gation. If pursuant to such interrogation any recovery of arti-cles are needed the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to do so and such recovery would be deemed to have been effected while the appellants were in custody; and
2. They shall attend the court on being summoned or required by the court.
This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
