In Brief
The appellants sought anticipatory bail after their earlier application was rejected for breach of court undertakings. The Supreme Court declined to grant bail, noting the applicants had repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and made false statements to gain time. However, since the appellants represented that they had now transferred the property as agreed (evidenced by registered documents and revenue records), the Court permitted them to approach the High Court with these documents, allowing the High Court to reconsider the matter in light of this subsequent compliance.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.