Ketan Suresh Pawar vs Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant

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)

JUDGMENT

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

Signature Not Verified High Court has directed the release of the respondent No.1 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