Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a special leave petition filed by the complainants (Ketan Suresh Pawar and another) challenging the order of the Bombay High Court granting bail to the respondent-accused (Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant) in connection with FIR No. 485/2014 registered under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC at Khar Police Station. The FIR was lodged on 27.11.2014 based on a complaint by Yogesh Ahir alleging that he was cheated of Rs.26.50 lakhs in a scheme for purchase of premises under a Special Quota Scheme. The respondent-accused, an employee of MHADA, was arrested on 18.12.2018, and his bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 04.01.2019. The High Court, however, granted bail on 13.02.2019, noting that the charge sheet had been filed, co-accused were already enlarged on bail, and the delay in arrest was not attributable to the accused. The petitioners contended that the High Court's order was non-speaking and that the accused was influential and had evaded arrest. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court had passed a detailed order and the operative portion was made available immediately. The Court found no material to show that the accused had violated bail conditions or that his custody was required for further investigation. The Court also distinguished the precedent cited by the petitioners (Chandrakeshwar Prasad @ Chandu Babu vs. State of Bihar) on facts, noting that the accused therein had serious criminal antecedents, unlike the present case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's discretion and dismissed the special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Grant of Bail - Discretion of High Court - The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in granting bail cannot be interfered with unless it is perverse or based on irrelevant considerations. The Court noted that the High Court had considered the nature of the offence, the role of the accused, and the fact that co-accused were granted bail. The delay in arrest was not attributable to the accused, and there was no material showing violation of bail conditions. (Paras 6-10) B) Criminal Law - Bail - Parity with Co-accused - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent on the ground of parity, as other co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. The Court observed that the allegations against the respondent were not so grave as to deny bail solely on that basis, especially when the charge sheet had been filed and the accused was in custody prior to trial. (Paras 7-8) C) Criminal Law - Bail - Delay in Arrest - The Supreme Court held that the delay in arrest of the accused, which was not due to absconding or evasion, cannot be a ground to deny bail. The investigating agency itself had not arrested the accused earlier, and this cannot be held against him. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent-accused was erroneous and required interference by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the High Court's order granting bail to respondent No.1. The Court found no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court.
Law Points
- Bail
- Discretion of High Court
- Non-interference
- Parity with co-accused
- Delay in arrest not attributable to accused
- Absence of violation of bail conditions
