AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. The petitioners are said to be father and son. The first petitioner is said to be 81 years old. The second petitioner is an Advocate by profession. It is claimed that they are law-abiding citizens. However, on the basis of a complaint that the petitioners had executed an agreement of sale along with a Power of Attorney in the year 2006, and that they had failed to complete the sale transaction and the repeated demands on the part of the complainant have been met with vague excuses and therefore, they are guilty of cheating and other offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC'', for brevity) and the petitioners are in grave apprehension of their arrest.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the face of it, the claim if any under any such agreement of sale is clearly barred by limitation in a civil court. Therefore, it is only in order to make a false claim against the petitioners, in order to blackmail them, that a criminal case has been instituted and the petitioners fear that if they are apprehended and taken into judicial custody, their very reputation would be destroyed. The learned counsel would submit that though there is a provision under which they could appear before the Lower Court, and seek bail, the prospect of the petitioners being remanded to judicial custody, pending consideration of their bail petition looms large and therefore, seeks that this court grant anticipatory bail and the petitioners would appear before the Lower Court and surrender themselves and face trial.
The suggestion though seems to spring from the apprehension which the petitioners harbour, given the circumstances of the case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an agreement of sale of the year 2006 if had been breached by non-performance, the remedy for the complainant was in civil law and if the same was barred by limitation, there was absolutely no case made out against the petitioners. The criminal case sought to be made out on the basis of the same would have to stand the test of trial. Therefore, it is a fit case where the petitioners would be entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, it is for the petitioners to appear before the Lower Court and seek bail. There is no need to arm them with additional protection of anticipatory bail. Given the circumstances of the case, the allegations against them may not stand the test of scrutiny.
Therefore, with the observation that the petitioners may not be remanded to judicial custody if in the event the court below is not in a position to consider the regular bail petition filed in the usual course, expeditiously, till such time that the court passes an appropriate order on such bail petition, the petition is disposed of.