Kurian Joseph, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellants approached this Court, aggrieved by the denial of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows :- "Perusal of the order dated 22.11.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, reveals that the petitioners had sought many adjournments on the pretext to comply with the said MoU but when the MoU was not honoured, their pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed. Before this Court also, on the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they will abide by all the conditions and will transfer the land in the name of the minor son of the complainant and petitioner No. 1, interim anticipatory bail was granted to them vide order dated 6.12.2016. But till date, they have not complied with the said order and time and again changed their stance, therefore, the Court feels that the statement made before this Court lacked bona fide and was made to gain time and mislead the Court. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that they have scant regard to the order of the Court, this Court is not inclined to grant concession of anticipatory bail to them. Dismissed. However, anything stated hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the case."
(3.) When the matter came up before this Court, the following order was passed on 01.11.2017 :- "The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that given some time, he shall produce the Title Deed transferring the Farm House in favour of the son in terms of the agreement......";