In Brief
Multiple rice millers challenged orders cancelling their anticipatory bail and directing them to furnish bank guarantees for defalcated sums following a Supreme Court order of 28.02.2017. The Court held that the Supreme Court's requirement to furnish bank guarantee referred only to obligations under the underlying milling agreements, not the defalcated sums. Where millers had already pledged immovable property as alternatives under the agreements, no additional bank guarantee was required. The Corporation was not justified in demanding these additional guarantees or cancelling bail on that ground. However, millers who failed to furnish the bank guarantees as actually obliged under their agreements, or who were not parties to the original proceedings, properly lost bail. The Court permitted the Corporation to encash bank guarantees or auction pledged properties to recover losses.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.