Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 8204
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ
AJAY AJIT PETER KERKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-003601-003608 - 2024
Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Adv., Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR, Mr. Vishvendra Tomar, Adv., Mr. Nikunj Mahajan, Adv., Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, Adv., Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv., Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv., Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
The court established that prolonged incarceration and serious health issues can justify the grant of bail, emphasizing the need for conditions to ensure trial cooperation.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 420, 471, 477(A) r/w 120
(B) - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Bail application - Appellant, aged 62, arrested in connection with multiple FIRs, sought bail on medical grounds - High Court denied bail but allowed home-cooked food and medical emergency transfer - Appellant's health condition and incarceration duration considered - Appeal allowed, bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Bail - Grant of bail - Factors to consider include age, health, duration of incarceration, and similarity of allegations against co-accused - Appellant's cooperation in trial emphasized. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was arrested in 2020 and has been incarcerated for over three years. He suffers from serious health issues and has been granted temporary bail previously for medical treatment. The investigation is complete, and charges have not yet been framed. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The appellant has made a case for bail considering his age, health, and the nature of the allegations. The trial is expected to be delayed. (Paras 7-10)
Issues: Whether the appellant should be granted bail considering his medical condition and the nature of the charges against him. (Paras 5-6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant's prolonged incarceration and health issues warranted bail, emphasizing the need for conditions to ensure trial cooperation. (Paras 8-10)
Result: Appeal allowed; bail granted with conditions.
ORDER
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeals arising out of Bail Application Nos. 2723, 2730, 2729, 2728, 2727, 2733, 2725, and 2724 of 2023.
The appellant herein was arrested on 26.11.2020 in connection with Special case No. 1090 of 2020 filed by the Directorate of Enforcement at Mumbai. Thereafter, the Office of EOW filed 8 FIRs against the accused which are relevant for the purposes of these appeals as follows:
| Sl.No | FIR No. | Under Sections | Complainant |
| 1 | EOW/CR.No. 40/2020 dated 26.11.2020 at PS N.M. Joshi Marg | 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 420, 471, 477 (A) r/w 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. | HDFC Bank |
| 2 | EOW/CR.No. 36/2020 dated 12.11.2020 at PS Cuff Parade | 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 420, 471, 477 (A) r/w 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. | Axis Bank |
| 3 | EOW/CR.No. 30/2020 dated 01.10.2020 at PS N.M. Joshi Marg | 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A) r/w 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. | Kotak Mahindra Bank |
| 4 | EOW/CR No. 37/2020 dated 13.11.2020 at MRA Police Station | 409, 418, 465, 467, 468, 420, 421, 422, 471, 477 (A) r/w 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code | Dinesh Goel |
| 5 | EOW/CR No. 47/2020 dated 11.12.2020 at MRA Police Station | 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 420, 471, 477 (A) r/w 120 of the Indian Penal Code | Laxmi Vilas Bank |
| 6 | EOW/CR No. 67/2021 dated 22.06.2021 at PS Dadar | 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 420, 471, 477 (A) r/w 120 of the Indian Penal Code | Yes Bank |
| 7 | EOW/CR.No. 95/2021 dated 11.11.2021 at PS N.M. | 406, 465, 467, 468, 420, 471, 477 (A) | Tourism Finance Corporation of |
| Joshi Marg | r/w 120 of the Indian Penal Code | India | |
| 8 | EOW/CR No. 33/2020 dated 23.10.2020 at PS Andheri | 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 420, 471, 477 (A) r/w 120 of the Indian Penal Code | Induslnd Bank |
Seeking bail in respect of the above mentioned cases, the appellant approached the Bombay High Court by filing Bail Applications No. 2723, 2730, 2729, 2728, 2727, 2733, 2725, and 2724 of 2023. Before the High Court, the appellant sought bail, inter alia, on the grounds of medical illness.
Vide impugned order, the High Court disposed of the said bail applications directing the prison authorities to shift the appellant to a Bombay Hospital in case of medical emergency. The Court also permitted the appellant to avail the facility of home- cooked food. However, the High Court declined to grant bail to the appellant herein.
Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the instant appeals. This Court vide its order dated 01.08.2024 issued notice in the instant matters.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is aged about 62 years and is a senior citizen. He has been incarcerated for a period of three years and eight months. That he has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2024 in SLP (Crl) Nos.6090-6091/2024 in respect of the offences alleged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA Act’ for short). That even earlier, having regard to his delicate medical condition, the appellant was granted temporary bail so as to take treatment and he was in fact hospitalized during the period from 18.03.2023 – 18.06.2023. That the appellant suffers from three major diseases concerning the heart, the liver and esophagus. The medical reports of the appellant is a testament to the said fact.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant and two other co-accused who are the Statutory Auditor and Chief Financial Officer of Cox and King Company, the company in which the appellant was a Non-Executive Director at the relevant point of time. He submitted that the charges have not been framed but owing to a large number of witnesses, definitely the trial would be delayed.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that suitable conditions may be imposed so as to secure the appellant and seek his cooperation in the trial. Therefore, relief may be granted to the appellant herein by setting aside the impugned
