BOMBAY HIGH COURT
N.J. Jamadar, J.
Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh – Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Bail Application No.1021 of 2022
Decided on 4.10.2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – At the stage of consideration of entitlement for bail, detailed examination of material/evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of case are not required to be undertaken – Nonetheless, Court is expected to ascribe reasons for granting or refusal to grant bail.
(2) Bail – Statutory restrictions in the matter of grant of bail are required to be considered reasonably.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – Considerations – Ordinarily, nature and seriousness of offences, circumstances in which offences were allegedly committed, circumstances peculiar to accused, in a given case, nature and character of evidence/material pressed into service against accused, possibility or otherwise of presence of accused not being secured at trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and possibility of trial being completed within a reasonable period and larger public interest, are factors which influence exercise of discretion – At the stage of consideration of entitlement for bail, detailed examination of material/evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of case are not required to be undertaken – Nonetheless, Court is expected to ascribe reasons for granting or refusal to grant bail – Such exercise is materially different from discussing merits/de-merits of case as Court would do at stage of determination of guilt or otherwise of accused. (Paras 20 and 21)

(B) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Statutory restrictions in the matter of grant of bail are required to be considered reasonably – Finding that accused is not guilty of offence and that he is not likely to commit offence if released on bail, are required to be recorded only for the purpose of arriving at objective finding on strength of material on record to assess entitlement for bail only – If Court having regard to material brought on record is satisfied that, in all probability, accused may not be ultimately convicted, order granting bail may be passed – Conversely, it is not peremptory that Court must arrive at a positive finding that Applicant has not committed offence under the Act – Likewise, satisfaction that accused is not likely to commit offence while on bail is qua offence of the kind with which accused is charged and not any other offence. (Para 26)

(C) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Applicant is ex-Home Minister of Government of Maharashtra – Prosecution case does not project two components of alleged unaccounted cash as proceeds of crime – There is no categorical allegation in supplementary prosecution complaint that a particular property has been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to scheduled offence of exercise of undue influence over transfers and postings – Applicant has succeeded in crossing first hurdle – Satisfaction regarding Applicant not committing offence while on bail, can be legitimately arrived at on the basis of fact that there are no antecedents to credit of Applicant – Substratum of prosecution case is that it was office of Home Minister which Applicant abused to indulge in predicate offences – Applicant has been suffering from multiple ailments – He is 73 years of age – Few of ailments may classified as degenerative – Medical reports/certificates also show that Applicant is suffering from chronic ailments, as well – Applicant appears to have roots in society – Possibility of fleeing away from justice seems remote – Apprehension on part of prosecution of tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions – Bail granted. (Paras 39, 49, 77, 85, 88 and 89)

(D) Interpretation of Statute – Role of Proviso [With reference to Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002] – As a general rule, proper function of a proviso is that it qualifies generality of enacting part by providing an exception and takes out, from main enactment, a portion which, but for proviso, would fall within ambit of enacting part – Normally, a proviso is not construed in such fashion as to completely nullify main enactment – If it is held that proviso can be resorted to only after accused fully satisfies twin conditions, then proviso would be rendered otiose – Conversely, if it is held that if personal attributes of accused satisfy requirement of proviso, accused can be released on bail, de hors nature of accusation and material in support thereof, main part of Section 45(1) would be rendered nugatory and very object of insertion of twin conditions would be defeated – Steering clear of these two extremes, exercise of judicious discretion, depending of facts of given case, appears to be correct approach. (Para 81)

Result: Bail Application allowed.