Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 4158/2019
Ketan Suresh Pawar & Anr. ….Petitioner (s)
Versus
Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant & Anr. …. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.08.27
16:56:12 IST
Reason:
herein subject to the conditions imposed therein. Though
the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings before
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 1 of 11
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
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 2 of 11
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
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 3 of 11
of the other coaccused, 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
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 4 of 11
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, he had
evaded arrest till December, 2018. In view of his arrest,
further investigation would be necessary and the
additional charge sheet is to be filed. Hence his release on
bail would not be appropriate.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No.1 has, however, contended that the High
Court in fact has passed a detailed order on 13.02.2019
itself as is evident on the face of the order but if there was
delay in uploading the same it cannot affect the validity of
the order. It is pointed out that the delay in arresting the
respondent No.1 is not on account of the respondent No.1
evading the arrest. It is his contention that the
respondent No.1 who is named Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant
is not in fact the person involved as the complaint was
filed against one Yuvraj Patil Sawant and the other
persons named in the complaint. In that circumstance, it
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 5 of 11
is contended that the High Court having referred to the
nature of the complaint and also having taken into
consideration that the other accused have been granted
bail despite the remand application referring to the role
played by them, has granted bail to respondent No.1. In
that view it is contended that when the High Court has
taken note of all aspects and exercised the discretion to
grant the bail the same does not call for interference.
6. At the outset, insofar as the contention relating to
the impugned order not containing reasons for the
conclusion; presently when it is noticed that the detailed
order is available, merely on the ground that the detailed
order was uploaded on 30.04.2019 we do not find it
appropriate to doubt the existence of the order inasmuch
as the detailed order also indicates the date 13.02.2019
and the order dated 13.02.2019 impugned by the
petitioners herein appears to be the operative portion of
the detailed order. In that regard it cannot be lost sight
that in cases where liberty of the person is involved and
the relief to enlarge on bail is granted, for immediate
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 6 of 11
compliance the operative portion would be made available
immediately and a copy may have been retained in the file.
In that circumstance the contention on that aspect alone
need not be taken as a circumstance for this Court to
interfere with the order passed by the High Court by
construing it as a nonspeaking order.
7. Insofar as the aspect with regard to the
discrepancy in the name of the respondent No. 1 in the
complaint and the contentions urged thereto by the
learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1 also need not
be gone into in the instant proceedings since those are
aspects which would remain as a defence in the trial and
the complicity or otherwise of the respondent No. 1 on that
basis would be determined therein. Therefore, limited to
the aspect relating to consideration of an application for
bail, the matter needs to be noted. Though the F.I.R. is
lodged on 27.11.2014 and the respondent No. 1 herein
was arrested during December, 2018, it is not borne out
from the record that the arrest was not possible as he was
absconding or was evaded in any other manner. On the
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 7 of 11
other hand, the investigating agencies themselves had not
arrested him at an earlier point and the same cannot be
held against the respondent No. 1 as a circumstance to
deny bail by accepting the contentions put forth by the
learned counsel for the petitioners herein. That apart the
observations contained in the order dated 04.01.2019 of
the learned Sessions Judge referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that there was intervention by a
Central Minister was not based on any concrete material
and further the fact remains that the respondent No. 1 in
any event was arrested and the instant consideration was
for a regular bail and not one for anticipatory bail so as to
take the same as a basis for consideration.
8. In that background considering that the charge
sheet had been filed and the other coaccused have been
enlarged on bail, the High Court has considered it
appropriate to grant the bail in favour of the respondent
No. 1 herein. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioner herein contends that the allegations against the
respondent No. 1 is of a serious nature, the present
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 8 of 11
custody being prior to trial the same cannot be treated as
one after conviction so as to deny the bail based only on
the allegation though in appropriate cases the same is also
to be kept in perspective. The allegations in any event
would be gone into in the trial. Even if a supplementary
charge sheet is required to be filed, the respondent No. 1
was available in custody from the date of his arrest till the
grant of bail. That apart, the State/Investigating Agency
has not made any grievance by challenging the order,
contending that his custody is required for interrogation.
Even if he is on bail, he shall certainly make himself
available. In addition, it is seen that the respondent No. 1
was released on bail as far back as on 13.02.2019 and
there is no material on record to indicate that as on today
any of the conditions imposed while granting bail has been
violated. Needless to mention that if the respondent No.1
violates the bail conditions, it will be open for the
petitioner herein to approach the High Court in that
regard.
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 9 of 11
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Chandrakeshwar Prasad @ Chandu Babu & Anr. vs.
State of Bihar & Ors . (2016) 9 SCC 443 to contend that
in the said case it was held that the High Court had erred
in granting bail to the respondent accused therein without
taking into consideration the overall facts otherwise
having a bearing on the exercise of its discretion on the
issue. In the said case it is noticed that the F.I.R. had
indicated that the accused is a habitual offender and he
had already been awarded two sentences of life
imprisonment and also named in several criminal cases.
The accused therein was also a categoryA history sheeter
in view of his persistent criminal antecedents. In that
background in the case which was being dealt with and
the bail was under consideration, he had been charged
with the offence of facilitating the murder of a witness in a
case in which he was being tried. In that background,
having considered all aspects this Court had arrived at
such conclusion. Needless to mention, in a matter
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 10 of 11
relating to consideration of a bail application the facts of
each case will have to be weighed on its own merits
keeping in view the principles for grant of bail, while
exercising the discretion available to the Court. In that
background, in the instant case, for the reasons stated
above the discretion as exercised by the High Court
cannot be termed as erroneous.
10. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the
order dated 13.02.2019 impugned herein. The special
leave petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
…………………….….J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
……………………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
August 27, 2019
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 11 of 11