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.

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