In Brief
The appellants sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC after the High Court denied it, citing their repeated failure to comply with court directions and undertakings. The Supreme Court found that despite promising to transfer property to fulfill an earlier settlement, the appellants had consistently delayed, changed their position, and acted with lack of bona fides. Consequently, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail. However, it permitted them to approach the High Court afresh with fresh evidence of property transfer compliance, allowing the High Court to reconsider their request in light of these subsequent developments.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.