SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR, J.
Rajesh Thomas Menzes – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Application No.491 of 2023
Decided on : 24-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Bhomesh Bellam with Mr. Tejas Kothalikar
For the Respondent: Mr. S.R.Aagarkar, Mr. Ashley Cusher, adv

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the limitations on the court's power to cancel bail and the need for strong and substantive reasons to arrest a person who is set at liberty by admitting him to bail.

Headnote:

Criminal Misc. Application - Cancellation of Pre-Arrest Bail - Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 406, 34, 3, 4 - The court discussed the legality, propriety, and correctness of the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant under Sections 420, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999. The court highlighted the discretion vested in the High Court and the Court of Session to cancel bail, the grounds for cancellation of bail, and the limitations on the court's power to delve into the merits of the matter afresh.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant was accused of inducing investments in a fraudulent scheme and obtaining pre-arrest bail. The Respondent No.2 filed an application for cancellation of bail, alleging suppression of material facts by the applicant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the learned Additional Sessions Judge exceeded jurisdiction in cancelling the bail by delving into the merits of the matter afresh. The court held that the appropriate course for the aggrieved party or the State was to approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail.

Issues: The pivotal question was whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in cancelling the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant by invoking the power under Section 439(2) of the Code on the premise that had the material which subsequently emerged been produced before the Court, he would not have granted pre-arrest bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of bail stands on a different footing than the rejection of bail at the first instance and must be resorted to sparingly and in deserving cases only. The court also emphasized the limitations on the court's power to delve into the merits of the matter afresh.

Final Decision: The application was allowed, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the order of pre-arrest bail and subsequent proceedings admitting the applicant to bail were restored. The court clarified that the aggrieved party or the State may seek cancellation of bail by approaching the High Court.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 11 May 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai in Criminal Misc. Application No.123 of 2022 preferred by the Respondent No.2 whereby the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant by an order dated 10 August 2021 passed in ABA No.552 of 2021 came to be cancelled and a non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant – accused, is assailed in this application.

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as under :

3.1 Santosh V. Soans - first informant, lodged a report with Manikpur Police Station with the allegations that he was induced by the applicant and the co-accused Amit Jain and Yogesh Bhalerao to invest an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs in the scheme floated by Aaj Edu Plus Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (the financial establishment), of which Amit Jain and Yogesh Bhalerao were the directors, by making a false representation of lucrative returns. Later, the Respondent No.2 and other investors were also defrauded in similar fashion to the tune of Rs. 8 Crores approximately. The applicant was working as a Sales Manager at the said company and had made representations that if the first informant and investors invested the amount with the said financial establishment, they would earn lucrative returns. Neither the principal amount was repaid, nor return thereon, as promised. Realizing the fraud, the first informant lodged a report leading to registration of C.R.No.195 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

3.2 Eventually, the co-accused Amit was arrested in the month of September 2021 and Yogesh was arrested in the month of October 2021.

3.3 The applicant preferred an application for pre-arrest bail. By an order dated 10 August 2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, was persuaded to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant ascribing reasons. It appears that the investigation came to be transferred to the Economic Offences Wing. Post completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed on 8 November 2021.

3.4 The Respondent No.2, who claimed to be one of the investors, preferred an application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail on 8 September 2022. It was, inter alia, alleged that the applicant had played a major role in the fraud and was also the beneficiary thereof. The Applicant falsely claimed to be the victim of the fraud. Thus, the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant was required to be cancelled.

3.5 By the impugned order, the leaned Additional Sessions Judge was persuaded to allow the said application preferred by the Respondent No.2 and cancelled the order of pre-arrest bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that while seeking pre-arrest bail, the applicant had suppressed many material facts. Had those facts, which were unearthed by the vigilant investors, been brought to the notice of the Court, the Court would not have granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that a thorough investigation regarding the role of the applicant and the intimate transactions between the said company and SRK, entity of the applicant, was required, and, therefore, the Investigating Officer must carry out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Holding thus, the bail was cancelled.

4. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of Respondent No.2. An endeavour is made to support the impugned order. Co-accused are stated to be in custody. Yet the applicant, who is the prime beneficiary of the alleged fraud, is at large. The applicant was a prime beneficiary and had obtained the order of pre-arrest bail by falsely claiming to be the victim of the alleged fraud and, therefore, the learned Additional S

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top