Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

FACTS OF THE CASE 

  • The appellant, owner of immovable property, entered into three agreements with the builder for the purpose of development of the property. As per the agreement, the builder was to contract multi-storeyed building.
  • The builder for the purpose of sell/purchase contracted with the complainants. The complainants allegedly paid 1lakh as token money. Later on different dates, the complainants paid more money through cash and cheques.
  • It is alleged that the complainants have failed to comply with the terms of the agreement causing the builder to file a civil suit.
  • The appellant moved to the high court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The High Court imposed certain conditions and asked the appellant and builder to deposit certain amount of money.
  • Aggrieved by which, appellant has preferred an appeal before the apex court.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

  • The court observed that the High Court has committed error in imposing a condition of depositing Rs.22,00,000 before grant of bail.
  • It was observed by the Court that the dispute between the parties herein is of civil nature therefore the process of criminal nature should not have been incorporated in the matter.
  • The court referred to the case of Munish Bhasin vs. State (NCT of Delhi where it was settled that neither Session court nor High court is justified in imposing freakish conditions to release an accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C 
"Loved reading this piece by Shubhaly Srivastav?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  489  Report



Comments
img