ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3725/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-04-2021 in CRLOP No. 5685/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
N.ISHWANT SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMILNADU Respondent(s)
(IA No. 61713/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 129108/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No. 129106/2021 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
Date : 03-01-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv.
Dr. Nanda Kishore, AOR
For Respondent(s) Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR
Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Adv.
Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar, AOR
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.
Mrs. Kumari Supriya, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Ishank Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
IA No. 129106/2021 for impleadment is allowed.
Cause title be amended accordingly
It is noted that this Court at the first instance while directing notice to the respondent had stayed the impugned condition on 18.05.2021. The complainant has also impleaded himself to this proceedings.
In that light, having heard learned counsel for the parties, we note that the High Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner herein on the ground that the condition imposed by the trial court has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the complainant has also taken us through the order passed by the trial court to contend that the condition was not imposed by the Court but the petitioner himself had undertaken to comply with the same.
Learned counsel for the State also points out that in certain circumstances representation is made to the court and thereafter the parties would back track from the same. Though such contentions are urged, in the instant case, a perusal of the papers would indicate that there are two aspects to the matter. Firstly, the petitioner had undertaken to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) in the loan account and also to regularize the loan.The condition in fact, has been imposed by the trial court to that effect which is evident from the operative portion of the order of the trial court.
In a matter of the present nature when it is not in dispute that the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) which was undertaken to be deposited, has been deposited, the representation SLP (Crl.) No.3725/2021made to that extent has been complied with by the petitioner.
Insofar as the regularization of the loan, though it was indicated to the Court that the same would be regularized, the same cannot be considered as a condition precedent for continuation of the bail, though the petitioner will have to make an effort to regularize the loan to avoid other consequence.
In that view, we are of the opinion that the interim order granted by this Court on 18.05.2021 staying the condition shall enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The same is made absolute and the bail granted to the petitioner shall continue.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
3