Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma vs National Investigating Agency

2023INSC755 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2505 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5764 of 2023

Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma .… Appellant(s)

Versus

National Investigating Agency & Anr. …. Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is Accused No.10 in connection with NIA

Signature Not Verified RC 01/2021/NIA/MUM (NIA Special Case No.1090/2021) Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi

registered for the alleged offences punishable under Date: 2023.08.23 16:47:49 IST Reason:

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 1 Sections 120B, 201, 302, 364 and 403 of the Indian Penal

Code (‘IPC’ for short), Section 25 of the Arms Act and

Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 2004 (‘UAPA’ for short). In respect of the

said proceedings the appellant who was arrested on

17.06.2021 had filed an application under Section 439 of

CrPC before the learned Special Court Greater Mumbai for

grant of bail. The learned Judge through the order dated

16.02.2022 had rejected the prayer for bail.

3. The appellant was before the High Court of Judicature

at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2022 assailing the

said order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the Special Court.

The High Court having adverted to the details of the

contentions has dismissed the appeal holding that it is not

a fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail. It is in that

circumstance the appellant is before this Court in this

appeal.

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 2

4. Heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi and Shri Siddharth Dave

learned senior counsel for the appellant, Shri S.V. Raju

learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents and

perused the appeal papers.

5. The specific facts need not be brought out in detail and

overburden this order in as much the High Court has

referred to the allegations, more particularly with regard to

the case of the prosecution sought to be made out against

the appellant herein. Further during the course of the

arguments, the learned senior counsel for the appellant as

also the learned Additional Solicitor General has referred to

the relevant portions of the order as also the material

available on record. However, the details relevant for the

limited purpose of consideration of the bail application is

alone noticed.

6. The case of the prosecution put forth is that the

appellant who is a retired police officer, in connivance with

Sachin Waze another senior police officer had planted

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 3 gelatin sticks in a Scorpio Vehicle near the residence of a

prominent businessman. In that regard, apart from

referring to the role of Sachin Waze who is alleged to have

also conspired with Mansukh Hiren to park this Scorpio

Vehicle, the allegation is also that the appellant had a role

with Sachin Waze in the murder of Mansukh Hiren. It is in

that background, the charge as alleged is made against the

appellant herein.

7. In the backdrop of the allegation, the High Court while

taking note of the circumstance alleged to connect the

appellant pertaining the offence wherein the gelatin sticks

were laid in the Scorpio vehicle has prima facie arrived at

the conclusion that it is a feeble attempt made to connect

the appellant with Sachin Waze in that regard, only when

the court questioned the NIA as to with whom Sachin Waze

had conspired in planting of gelatin sticks in the Scorpio

vehicle. With the further observation in that regard, High

Court has noted that the charge sheet does not prima facie

disclose that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy of

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 4 planting gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. Hence it was

observed that after filing a detailed investigation report

wherein the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and

Arms Act were not applied by the NIA against the appellant,

it was only during the course of the arguments the

prosecution was trying to link the appellant with the

Scorpio vehicle-laden with gelatin sticks. The said

observations made by the High Court would in fact indicate

that in the present facts, as against the role assigned to the

appellant, invoking of the UAPA would pale into

insignificance and the rigor of that law would not be

applicable at this stage while considering the application of

the appellant for bail.

8. The further allegation against the appellant is with

regard to his role in the murder of Mansukh Hiren. The

circumstance as alleged against the appellant has been

taken note of by the High Court in great detail as brought in

paragraphs 7.14, 7.16, 7.19 and 7.22 of the order

impugned. In that regard, much has been said about the

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 5 role of Santosh Shelar (Accused No.6) and the appellant

herein being in contact with each other and also with

Sachin Waze. The role of Sachin Waze of bringing a bag

containing money in his car to the P.S. Foundation

Compound at Andheri on 03.03.2021 and handing it over to

the appellant is also referred. In that regard it is alleged

that P.S. Foundation admittedly being run by the appellant

was the place wherein the bag containing money was given

to the appellant for executing the murder of Mansukh

Hiren. The sequence of events to connect such activities

involving the appellant, Sachin Waze, and Santosh Shelar is

referred to in great detail.

9. In so far as the handing over of money it has been

explained on behalf of the appellant that the Ex-Home

Minister of Maharashtra had called Sachin Waze in the last

week of February 2021 and had given him an ultimatum to

collect an amount of Rs.100 Crores from various sources

and hand over the money within one week which was

expiring on 03.03.3021, failing which the threat of action

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 6 against Sachin Waze had been held out. It is in that

background explained, that the meeting between the

appellant and Sachin Waze who were colleagues earlier had

taken place. In this regard, the High Court has rightly

indicated that the defence of such nature cannot be looked

into at this stage and are matters of trial. Similarly, we have

noted the circumstances alleged against the appellant to

contend that he was complicit to the crime of murdering

Mansukh Hiren. They are also matters of evidence which is

to be established during the trial by connecting the chain of

circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt. However, for the present having noted

that the charge under UAPA would pale into insignificance

and even if the remaining charge based on circumstantial

evidence is kept in view, in so far as the role assigned to the

appellant, the other circumstances which are relevant for

grant of bail would be appropriate to be taken note of.

10. In that regard, as already referred to, the appellant

was arrested as far back as 17.06.2021 and has been in

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 7 custody throughout, except for the brief period when this

Court had released him on interim bail so as to attend to

the medical treatment of his wife. In so far as the appellant

is concerned, he has been interrogated and a charge sheet

has been filed. Since all witnesses out of more than 300

witnesses named are to be examined and, in that regard,

further investigation under Section 173(8) is pending, and a

supplementary charge sheet would be filed, the process will

not conclude in the near future. In so far as the role alleged

against the appellant, as already noted by the High Court

the charge sheet does not disclose that the appellant was

involved in the conspiracy of planting gelatin sticks in the

Scorpio vehicle. As per the charge, the appellant is stated to

have conspired with Sachin Waze and others to eliminate

Mansukh Hiren which is a matter of circumstantial

evidence to be proved by the prosecution.

11. Though the High Court has arrived at the conclusion

that the appellant being a retired police officer, there is the

likelihood of interference in the course of trial, in our

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 8 opinion the fact that he was a police officer and has retired

after rendering 37 years of service is a factor which should

weigh in favour of the appellant as he has strong root in

Mumbai and would be available to stand trial. The case is

being prosecuted by a different agency-the NIA. That apart,

there is no adverse report about the conduct of the

appellant while he was out on interim bail. Further, he

would also be aware that violating any of the conditions of

bail would be detrimental to his own interest. In addition, it

has also been urged before us that he has his mother aged

about 93 years to care for, his wife who is also not enjoying

good health has to undergo a reversal of bariatric surgery.

This in fact was an aspect which was taken note of by this

Court for the grant of interim medical bail and the

operation advised could not be performed during the short

period he was out on interim bail.

12. Therefore, if all the above aspects are kept in view,

we are of the opinion that in the present facts, taking note

of the role assigned to the appellant as also the

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 9 circumstances stated to connect the appellant to the crime

and also the fact that the charge sheet has already been

filed, there would be no purpose in continuing the appellant

in custody. We are therefore of the opinion, that the

appellant is to be released on bail subject to appropriate

conditions being imposed by the trial court and the

appellant diligently adhering to the said conditions and

participating in the process of trial.

13. In that view, the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by

the Special Court (NIA) Greater Mumbai and the order dated

23.01.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal

No.258/2022 are set aside. It is directed that the appellant

be released on bail. For the purpose of imposition of

conditions and issue of a release order, the appellant shall

be produced forthwith before the trial court.

14. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 10

15. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………...……………………….J. (A.S. BOPANNA)

........................................................J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

New Delhi, August 23, 2023

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 11 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-A (For judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO.5764 OF 2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23.01.2023 in Crl.A. No. 258/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.)

PRADEEP RAMESHWAR SHARMA Appellant(s) VERSUS

NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY & ANR. Respondent(s)

[ HEARD BY : HON'BLE A.S. BOPANNA AND HON'BLE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ. ] Date : 23-08-2023 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Subhash Jadhav, Adv.

Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv.

Mr. Dilip Rawat, Adv.

Mr. Chandan Singh Shekhawat, Adv.

Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv.

Mr. Mohd. Ashaab, Adv.

Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.

Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.

Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv.

Ms. Chitrangda Rastaravara, Adv.

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 12 Mr. Siddharth Dharamadhikari, Adv.

Mr. Srikant Sonkawade, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.

Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.

Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna has pronounced the non-reportable judgment comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Leave granted.

The order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the Special Court (NIA) Greater Mumbai and the order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.258/2022 are set aside. It is directed that the appellant be released on bail. For the purpose of imposition of conditions and issue of a release order, the appellant shall be produced forthwith before the trial court.

The appeal is allowed in terms of signed non-reportable judgment.

(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

SLP(Crl) No.5764/2023 Page 13