Suo Motu (Court On Its Own) vs Karuna Hareshwarrao Shirbhate ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9255 Bom

                                                                                                                   appln 34.17.odt
                                                                    1/8                                                                   



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                            Suo Motu Application (APPLN) No. 34/2017
               (Court on its own motion Vs. Karuna Hareshwarrao Shirbhate & anr.) 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                          Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Mr. B. M. Lonare, Addition Public Prosecutor for State.
                                           Mr. P. V. Navlani, Advocate for accused/non-applicants.


                                                                                       
                                                    CORAM  : S. B. Shukre, J.

DATE : 04.12.2017.

1. The two accused Karuna Hareshwarrao Shirbhate

and Akash Hareshwarrao Shirbhate in Crime No. 356/2016

registered against them and others at Police Station, Kotwali ,

Amravati face the present proceedings initiated by this Court

on its own motion. The proceedings are for cancellation of

bail granted to them.

2. It is so happened that the other Bench of this

Court was hearing a bail application of the co-accused

Ravindra S/o Deorao Gandre filed under Sections 439 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, when it noticed that the two

accused i.e. Karuna Shirbhate and Akash Shirbhate against

whom these proceedings are suo motu started by the Court

were granted bail by the Sessions Court on 24 th August, 2016

and by this Court on 20th April, 2017 respectively without

examining the matter from the angle of involvement of

appln 34.17.odt

officials/employees of the bank in the present crime.

The crime registered against these two accused as

well as the co-accused Ravindra, Crime No. 356/2016

registered at Police Station Kotwali, Amravati, is for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471

and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

it is registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by Andhra

Bank, Amravati. The basic allegation of the complainant -

bank against all these accused is that they got sanctioned loan

from Andhra Bank for the purpose of starting Printing Press by

indulging in fraudulent tactics and submitting forged

documents. While granting bail to both the said accused -

Karuna and Akash, the respondents here, issue of involvement

of any employee of the bank was not present as neither the

complainant - bank nor anybody else had then made any

allegation against any of the bank officials for his being a

party to the fraud perpetrated by the said two accused persons

and co-accused Ravindra. Even the Investigating Officer, at

that point of time, did not consider this possibility while

investigating the case.

3. Hence, from the view point of finding out

involvement of any bank official in commission of the

aforesaid offences, it was during the course of hearing of the

appln 34.17.odt

application of the co-accused Ravindra (Criminal Application

(BA) No. 977/2016), that the other Bench of this Court felt

the need for directing the investigation into this aspect of the

matter so as to ascertain the role of the bank officials in the

whole case. Accordingly, this Court by order passed on 5 th

June, 2017 issued three directions one for leading the

investigation into an inquiry about the involvement of the

bank officials in the Crime or otherwise, second for

conducting a discreet inquiry against the Investigating Officer

to find out as to why the Investigating Officer did not conduct

investigation by suspecting involvement of the officials or

employees of the Bank in the crime and the third of issuing

notice to the present two accused, Karuna and Akash, to show

cause as to why the pre-arrest bail granted to them should not

be canceled.

4. Here, we are concerned with the third direction as

the notice issued to these two accused persons has been duly

received by them and they are now before this Court ready

with their submissions.

5. Accordingly, I have heard Shri Navlani, learned

counsel for two accused and Shri Lonare, Additional Public

Prosecutor to the State. He has filed reply of the State to this

appln 34.17.odt

application. It is taken on record.

6. On going through the reply, I find that the

Investigating Officer is now seeking appropriate order from

the Court and not any order regarding cancellation of bail or

detaining of these two accused in jail at the behest of

Economic Offence Wing for a longer period of time. The

Investigating Officer of the Economic Offence Wing is also

present. When asked, if custody of these two accused would

be required or not , he replied that accused Akash Shirbhate

was in custody in another crime and during that period of

time, he completed the investigation in the present crime as

against Karuna Shirbhate and Akash Shirbhate and so their

custody in the present crime would not be required. He has

also informed, which is particularly stated in the reply as well,

that the Branch Manager who submitted a false report about

existence of the Printing Press and showed that he paid a visit

to the place where so-called Printing Press was in existence in

a false manner has been placed under arrest and investigation

against him as well is about to be completed. It is further

informed that Branch Manager is in jail custody. The charge-

sheet against all these accused, as informed by the

Investigating Officer, would be filed within a period of one

month, though it could be earlier than that, depending upon

appln 34.17.odt

the receipt of the original papers which are relevant in the

matter, from the zonal office of the concerned bank.

7. The above referred facts would indicate that there

is no justification for cancellation of the bail already granted

to both the accused persons. It is also nobody's case that bail

has been granted to these two accused by ignoring the well-

settled principles of law or any specific prohibition imposed by

law. It is well known that it is easier to grant bail than cancel

it, once granted (See State (Delhi Administration) Vs.

Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961). It is also well settled that

parameters which apply to exercise of discretion to grant bail

are different from those applicable to exercise of discretion at

a later stage regarding cancellation of the bail already granted

(See Dolat Ram Vs Sate of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349).

Later parameters are much stricter than those applicable to

grant of bail. It is only when the bail was granted against

well-settled principles of law or prohibition of law or when

the Investigating Officer requires custody of the accused for

investigating into new revelation of inculpatory facts not

present when the bail was granted or when the accused

enlarged on bail is indulging in something which is prejudicial

to the interest of the prosecution or when the accused

released on bail tampers with prosecution witnesses or

appln 34.17.odt

evidence or when there is reasonable apprehension newly

developed after grant of bail to the accused that he has made

preparation for not making himself available to the Court of

justice or is likely to evade the course of justice, then only the

bail granted by the Court could be canceled. A useful

reference in this regard may be made to the cases of (i)

Gurucharan Singh & others Vs. State (Delhi

Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 and (ii) Kanwar Singh

Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. (2012) 12 SCC 180.

The facts discussed earlier, obviously do not meet any of these

parameters.

8. Shri Navlani, learned counsel for the said accused

has invited my attention to the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Vikramjit Singh Vs. State of M.P.,

AIR 1992 SC 474 where, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held

that cancellation of bail by coordinate bench of same Court on

new or the additional ground is not justified specially when

earlier order of grant of bail had become final, with its not

being appealed against. It is further held in this case in

paragraph 3 that no Bench can comment on the functioning of

a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court, much less, sit in

judgment as an Appellate Court over its decision.

appln 34.17.odt

9. Firstly, I must say, this is not a case where the

coordinate bench has canceled the bail granted by another

Bench. As regards the law relating to making of comments on

the functioning of Co-ordinate Bench or sitting in appeal by

another Bench, I do not think that the law would be

applicable to the present case for the simple reason that no

comments whatsoever have been made by the other Bench

while issuing suo-motu notice for cancellation of bail to the

two accused persons and so question of sitting in appeal does

not arise. On the contrary, it appears, while passing the

order on 05.06.2017, the other Bench of this Court looked

quite concerned about the manner in which the investigation

was being conducted at that time, by the concerned

Investigating Officer and these concerns, can now also be said

to be justified because after this order, the investigation in this

case came to be transferred to Economic Offence Wing of

Amravati Police and after taking over of the investigation by

the Wing that new facts constituting commission of offences

by even more persons have been discovered. As a sequel to it,

the Branch Manager of the Andhra Bank has now been

arrested. This investigation has also found, prima-facie, an

unholy nexus between bank officials and unscrupulous

borrowers. Now, with the investigation sailing on its proper

course and is likely to be concluded very soon, the order

appln 34.17.odt

passed by another Bench on 5th June, 2017, I would say, has

resulted in bringing to the fore something good, which would

go a long way in serving the interests of the society in future.

10. In the result, I am of the view that now there is no

need to cancel the bail already granted to the said accused

and the suo-motu proceedings deserve to be closed.

The proceedings stand closed.

JUDGE Gohane