1. Fraudulent sale of bank auction flats — Complaint under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 34 IPC — Challenge to High Court order granting bail. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 964
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
KETAN SURESH PAWAR & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
YUVRAJ SANDEEPAN SAWANT & ANR. – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4158 of 2019
Decided On : 27-08-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In a matter relating to consideration of a bail application facts of each case will have to be weighed on its own merits keeping in view principles for grant of bail.
(2) Bail once granted, cannot be cancelled without any compelling reasons.
(1) In a matter relating to consideration of a bail application facts of each case will have to be weighed on its own merits keeping in view principles for grant of bail.
(2) Bail once granted, cannot be cancelled without any compelling reasons.
Subject
Bail - Regular Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 – Grant of bail – Challenge by complainant – Respondents were booked under cheating and forgery charges – Allegations in any event would be gone into in trial – Even if a supplementary charge sheet is required to be filed, the respondent No. 1 was available in custody from date of his arrest till grant of bail – State/Investigating Agency has not made any grievance by challenging the order, contending that his custody is required for interrogation – Even if he is on bail, he shall certainly make himself available – Respondent No. 1 was released on bail as far back as on 13.02.2019 and there is no material on record to indicate that as on today any of conditions imposed while granting bail has been violated – In a matter relating to consideration of a bail application facts of each case will have to be weighed on its own merits keeping in view principles for grant of bail, while exercising discretion available to Court – Discretion as exercised by High Court cannot be termed as erroneous – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the Case:
Petitioners are before this Court assailing order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application No.191 of 2019. Through said order High Court has directed release of the respondent No.1 herein subject to the conditions imposed therein. Though petitioners were not parties to the proceedings before High Court, being the complainants, which culminated in registration of the F.I.R. No. 485 of 2014 registered under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC.
Findings of Court:
In a matter relating to consideration of a bail application the facts of each case will have to be weighed on its own merits keeping in view the principles for grant of bail, while exercising the discretion available to the Court. In that background, in the instant case, for the reasons stated above discretion as exercised by High Court cannot be termed as erroneous.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Viraj Kadam, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Rathod, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advocate and Mr. Anoop Kandari, Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Viraj Kadam, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Rathod, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advocate and Mr. Anoop Kandari, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to bail grant on grounds of non-speaking order, influential status of accused, evasion of arrest, and necessity of further investigation. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Delay in uploading a detailed order does not invalidate it; arrest delay by agency is not evasion; pre-trial custody differs from post-conviction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Bail discretion must be exercised based on the specific merits of each case, considering charge sheet filing, parity with co-accused, and absence of absconding. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed; High Court order granting bail upheld. (Para 10 )
6. Does a delay in uploading a detailed court order render the grant of bail invalid or the order non-speaking?
No. If a detailed order exists and is dated the same day as the operative portion, a delay in uploading it does not affect the order's validity or make it non-speaking, especially when immediate release is necessary for personal liberty. (Para 6 )
7. Can a delay in the investigating agency's arrest of an accused be used as a ground to deny bail by treating it as evasion?
No. If the record does not show the accused was absconding, the failure of the investigating agency to arrest the person at an earlier point cannot be held against the accused as a ground to deny bail. (Para 7 )
8. Should the seriousness of allegations alone be the primary basis for denying bail during the pre-trial stage?
No. Pre-trial custody cannot be treated as post-conviction custody. While allegations are kept in perspective, they are primarily determined during trial, and bail may be granted if the charge sheet is filed and co-accused are released. (Para 8 )
9. How should courts apply precedents when exercising discretion to grant or deny bail?
Bail discretion must be weighed on the merits of each individual case. Precedents involving habitual offenders or history sheeters are distinguishable from cases where the accused has no such criminal antecedents. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT :
A.S. BOPANNA, J.
1. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application No. 191 of 2019. Through the said order the learned Judge of the High Court has directed the release of the respondent No. 1 herein subject to the conditions imposed therein. Though the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings before the High Court, being the complainants, which culminated in the registration of the F.I.R. No. 485 of 2014 registered under Sec. 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC on 27.11.2014 with Khar Police Station, they are in that view claiming to be aggrieved by the grant of bail.
2. Heard Shri Viraj Kadam learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar learned counsel for respondent No.2 -State and perused the petition papers.
3. The brief facts leading to the case put forth by the prosecution is that in the year 2014 one Yogesh Ahir lodged a complaint against Sunita Tupsaundarya, Ramesh Chavan, Jitendra Gadia and Yuvraj Sawant Patil. In the complaint it is alleged that the complainant was in search of a premises for purchase and had accordingly traced the Estate Agent namely the Jitendra Gadia who was dealing in bank auction flats. The said Estate Agent had represented to the complainant about the Special Quota Scheme under which the premises could be purchased without the lottery system. The complainant having shown his willingness had paid Rs.3 lakhs to Vijaynath Pal and received possession letter of the premises from Jitendra Gadia. The further payments made in that regard to Jitendra Gadia is referred in the complaint and it is alleged that the false assurances given were not fulfilled. In that regard though cheques of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs. 15 lakhs were received by the complainant from Sunita Tupe the said cheques were dishonoured and accordingly the complainant was cheated to the extent of Rs. 26.50 lakhs. The case is also that in respect of the complaint the co-accused of the respondent No.1 were arrested and on completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against them. However, the respondent No.1 herein was arrested on 18.12.2018. In that view the respondent No.1 herein filed the application for bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected through the order dated 04.01.2019. It is in that light the petition was filed before the High Court seeking bail. The High court having taken note of the sequence of events and also taking into consideration the nature of the offence alleged and the role of the other co-accused, further taking note that the other accused are granted bail, has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1, enlarging him on bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order passed by the High Court has primarily contended that the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the High Court does not assign any reason for the conclusion to grant the bail. Though at this point, it is not disputed that a detailed order has also been passed by the High Court, the learned counsel would refer to the copy produced along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 to contend that the same was uploaded only on 30.04.2019 and as such the reasons were not available on 13.02.2019. It is his further contention that the learned Judges of the Committal Court as also the learned Judge of the Sessions Court have rejected the bail application after assigning appropriate reasons. Despite that, the High Court without reference to these aspects of the matter has allowed the application. Insofar as the allegations as contained in the complaint, it is contended that the respondent No. 1 being an employee of MHADA has indulged in committing fraud and deceiving several persons. It is his further case that the respondent No. 1 is highly influential and in that circumstance, h
