Vithal Damuji Meher vs Manik Madhukar Sarve
- Neutral2024 INSC 785
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A review petition against an order cancelling bail will not succeed merely because: (i) observations in the impugned judgment are disputed as incorrect; (ii) the temporal scope or change in circumstances triggering the cancellation is not explicitly specified; (iii) relevant precedents are said to have been overlooked; (iv) the maxim "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" is invoked; or (v) co-accused persons have been granted bail, absent grounds meeting the threshold for review jurisdiction. The fact that bail was granted by a High Court does not preclude its cancellation by the Supreme Court, and the cancellation of bail by the Supreme Court does not prevent a court of coordinate or inferior jurisdiction from considering a fresh bail application if presented at a later period or upon a change in circumstances, exercising its discretion in accordance with law and without inhibition from observations made against an applicant in the earlier judgment. The period of incarceration prior to grant of bail is to be assessed on the facts of each case; incarceration for approximately five and a half months, where bail was granted after that period and remained operative for nearly three years before cancellation, does not constitute incarceration for a significant period such as to weigh substantially in favour of bail restoration merely by reference to such prior incarceration.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2024 INSC 785 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) [DIARY] NO.41376 OF 2024
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3573 OF 2024
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.3945 OF 2022]
VITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER …PETITIONER
versus
MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
DIPANKAR DATTA & AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
By way of the captioned defective review petition, the Petitioner seeks
review of Judgment dated 28.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3573
of 2024 titled Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. v Vitthal Damuji Meher & Signature Not Verified
Ors.1 Vide the said judgment [authored by one of us (Ahsanuddin Digitally signed by rashmi dhyani pant Date: 2024.10.16 17:42:58 IST Reason:
Amanullah, J.)], the Court set aside the grant of bail to the Petitioner
1 2024 INSC 636 | 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2271.
2
(Respondent No.1 in the appeal) and directed him to surrender within three
weeks.
2. The jurisprudential contour for a review petition was considered lately
in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362. The
present coram has taken note of the same in A S Raghavendra v Bharti
Airtel Limited, Review Petition (Civil) No.1425/2024 2. We have kept the
principles enumerated therein in mind.
3. A glance at the petition would exhibit that the Petitioner is dissatisfied
on his understanding that: observations in Para 26 of the judgment of which
review is sought are incorrect and contrary to the record; ‘later period’ or
‘change in circumstances’ has not been specified; relevant precedents have
not been considered; ‘Bail is the Rule, Jail is the exception’ (sic) has been
ignored; all other arrested accused have been released on bail; etcetera.
4. As to why the Petitioner, in his own words, has been ‘single(d) out’, we
need only point towards the well-accepted dicta, reiterated in Sanjay Dubey
v State of Madhya Pradesh3, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 610:
‘18.… It is too well-settled that judgments are not to be read as Euclid's theorems; they are not to be construed as statutes, and; specific cases are authorities only for what they actually decide. We do not want to be verbose in reproducing the relevant 2 Non-Reportable Order dated 24.09.2024.
3 2023 INSC 519.
3 paragraphs but deem it proper to indicate some authorities on this point - Sreenivasa General Traders v State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 353 and Amar Nath Om Prakash v State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 345 - which have been reiterated, inter alia, in BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234, and Chintels India Limited v Bhayana Builders Private Limited, (2021) 4 SCC 602.’ (emphasis supplied)
5. The facts of every case vary and are to be judged in their unique
perspective. Grant of bail to co-accused would not ipso facto entitle the
instant Petitioner to the same. Moreover, the record indicates that the
Petitioner was arrested on 28.04.2021 and granted bail by the High Court on
13.10.2021. Hence, the Petitioner was incarcerated for about 6 months, nay,
5 ½ months only. This cannot be taken as ‘incarceration for a significant
period of time’ as sought to be projected by the Petitioner by relying on
Union of India v K A Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713. Further, a reading of the
Judgment dated 28.08.2024 makes it clear that the Court was conscious of
the peculiarities of the case, as it was cancelling bail after almost three
years, and that Chargesheet had been filed.
6. The judgment of which review is sought has considered the role
ascribed to the Petitioner, including the version in the Chargesheet. To allay
the Petitioner’s apprehensions, authorities concerned have been directed to
render appropriate care and assistance apropos his medical condition. The 4
calming caveat, that a bail application preferred afresh by the Petitioner shall
be considered on its own merits, without prejudice to the cancellation of bail
so ordered, also finds place in the Judgment dated 28.08.2024. We do not
appreciate the casual averment to the effect that ‘once bail granted by the
Hon’ble High Court is cancelled by this Hon’ble Court, neither the Learned
Trial Court nor the Hon’ble High Court would grant bail to the Review
Petitioner.’ The High Court, as also the Trial Court in seisin, have been
specifically permitted by this Court to consider the Petitioner’s bail
application, if and when preferred, ‘at a later period or in the event of a
change in circumstances’. The discretion in this context, albeit, to be
exercised in accordance with law, of the Court(s) below is left untouched.
Nevertheless, if the Petitioner chooses to so apply, while considering such
bail plea, the Court concerned need not feel inhibited by observations, if any,
against the Petitioner in the Judgment dated 28.08.2024, regard being had
to all due factors.
7. Above being the position, a case for review is not discernible. This
petition is, thus, dismissed.
8. Crl. M. P. seeking listing of the review petition in Open Court for
hearing is rejected.
5
9. Crl. M. P. seeking exemption from surrendering is dismissed as
infructuous, as the period of three weeks granted to the Petitioner to
surrender (reckoned from 28.08.2024) has long elapsed.
10. Crl. M. P. seeking permission to file additional documents stands
closed.
………..…………………………..J. [DIPANKAR DATTA]
………..…………………………..J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH] NEW DELHI OCTOBER 15, 2024
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free