Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2025 DIGILAW 353 (SC)

A. Mohamed Yusuf Ansari v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

2025-01-21

M.M.SUNDRESH, RAJESH BINDAL

body2025
ORDER : 1. Permission to file SLP(Crl.) Diary No(s). 36032/2023 is granted. 2. Leave granted. 3. Seeking anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), the present appeals have been filed by the appellants in SLP(Crl.) No.10817/2023 and SLP(Crl.) No. 10883/2023, who are the father-in-law of the de-facto complainant and the General Manager of the Company. 4. The SLP(Crl.) Diary No(s).36032/2023 has been filed by the de-facto complainant, challenging the anticipatory bail granted to his mother-in-law. 5. Though arguments have been made at length, what is not in dispute is that a sum of Rs.12.5 crores have already been paid on behalf of the appellant, namely, the father-in-law of the de-facto complainant to him. We have also been informed that the remaining amount has not been paid, which the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that they are unable to do so. 6. On a perusal of the complaint and taking note of the ousting relationship between the parties, we are of the view that the custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required. 7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 8. In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands set aside and the appellants are granted anticipatory bail, subject to the condition that the appellants shall cooperate with the investigation. 9. Accordingly, appeals arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.10817/2023 and 10883/2023 are allowed. 10. Insofar as SLP(Crl.) Diary No(s). 36032/2023 seeking for cancellation of anticipatory bail is concerned, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, we make it clear that the observations made, being prima facie, in nature, will not have any bearing on the trial. 11. Accordingly, the appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) Diary No(s). 36032/2023 is dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.