Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1113
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.T. SELVAM, J.
MRF Limited, represented by its Deputy General Manager – Appellant
Versus
Ujjawal Sampath Chordia & Another – Respondents
CRL.R.C. No. 1268 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 27-02-2015
For the Petitioner:Rupert Barnabas for M/s. King & Patridge, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel for K.V. Bashyam Chari, Advocate, R2, M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate [Crl.side].
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code – Section 406, 420 r/w 120-B - Delivery of a foreign Car on misrepresentation – Anticipatory bail - Case in Crime on file of second respondent has been registered for offences u/s.406, 420 r/w 120-B IPC - Petitioner is de facto complainant company - Accusation is that petitioner complainant was induced to effect payment of a sum to accused towards having delivery of a foreign Car on misrepresentation that partnership firm of accused was dealer for such Car - Further allegation is that petitioner was induced to spend a sum of towards customs duty and other expenses - Several others across Country had been cheated by accused in similar fashion - Pursuant to a Look Out Circular first respondent wife of accused in case has been apprehended by Mumbai police and on direction of learned XXIV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate surrendered before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - She has sought bail on same day and was granted relief – Petitioner de facto complainant moved seeking cancellation of bail and same was dismissed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - Against such dismissal petitioner has preferred present revision – Held, In reply counsel for petitioner submitted that he has filed additional grounds and in face of abuse of process of Court it would be open to him to canvass same - Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail already granted - Generally speaking grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice or abuse of concession granted to accused in any manner - Satisfaction of Court on basis of material placed on record of possibility of accused absconding is yet another reason justifying cancellation of bail - However bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow accused to retain his freedom by enjoying concession of bail during trial - These principles it appears were lost sight of by High Court when it decided to cancel bail already granted - High Court it appears to us overlooked distinction of factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in first instance and cancellation of bail already granted - Criminal Revision stand dismissed
1. This revision challenges the order of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.7573 of 2014 in X Crime No.317 of 2014, on 04.12.2014.
2. The case in Crime No.317 of 2014 on the file of second respondent has been registered for offences u/s.406, 420 r/w 120-B IPC. Petitioner is the de facto complainant company. The accusation is that petitioner/complainant was induced to effect payment of a sum of Rs.1,98,50,592/- to the accused towards having delivery of a foreign Car on misrepresentation that the partnership firm of the accused was the dealer for such Car. The further allegation is that petitioner was induced to spend a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards customs duty and other expenses. Several others across the Country had been cheated by the accused in similar fashion. Pursuant to a Look Out Circular, first respondent/wife of accused in the case, has been apprehended by the Mumbai police on 31.10.2014 and on the direction of learned XXIV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivalli, Mumbai, surrendered before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on 03.11.2014. She has sought bail in Crl.M.P.No.7332 of 2014 on the same day and was granted relief. Petitioner/de facto complainant moved Crl.M.P.No.7573 of 2014 seeking cancellation of bail and the same was dismissed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, on 04.12.2014. Against such dismissal, petitioner has preferred the present revision.
3. Heard Mr. Rupert Barnabas, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. V.Gopinath, learned senior counsel for first respondent and Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] for second respondent. Records called for and perused. So also, the status report of second respondent.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in seeking cancellation of bail before Court below it had been pointed out that learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in ordering bail had required the accused to execute a bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/- as also to produce two sureties in like sum. Of the two sureties produced, one of them, towards his identification, had furnished a copy of a sale deed which did not stand in his name but which stood in the name of one Mrs. Vanitha. It also was pointed out that the address informed by first respondent/accused in the petition for bail and in her passport were at variance. First respondent having been required to appear before the Investigating Officer daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders under orders of bail in her favour, sought relaxation of conditions in Crl.M.P.No.7416 of 2014. Petitioner had intervened therein and such petition had been dismissed under orders dated 18.11.2014. The further ground raised in support of the petition seeking cancellation of bail was that while in the relaxation petition, first respondent had informed of staying alone in a Hotel, on the intervener's contention that she had not disclosed the name of the Hotel nor produced bills, bills were produced and they were found to be standing in the name of some other person. Therefore, fraud was imputed to the conduct of first respondent.
5. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, took into consideration that first respondent had been released on bail after duly satisfying himself with the identity of sureties through documents produced before him and by accepting their affidavits. Recording that first respondent had been enlarged on bail on due satisfaction with the conditions imposed, accepting the error regards the address as a typographical one and observing that the document which had been produced before it stood in the name of the wife of one of the sureties and as such no fraud stood committed, Court below dismissed the petition.
6. Besides the contentions raised before Court below, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the counter to Crl.M.P.No.7416 of 2014 seeking relaxation of bail conditions, second respondent
