Kantilal Achlaji Shah vs State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 3872 Bom

                                                       925 and 926 ba 1232 and 1234-22.doc

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1232 OF 2022

             Kantilal Achalji Shah                                   ..Applicant

                         v/s.

             The State of Maharashtra .                              ..Respondents

                                        WITH
                           BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1234 OF 2022

             Jitendra Kantilal Shah                                  ..Applicant

                         v/s.

             The State of Maharashtra .                       ..Respondents

             Mr. Abad Ponda, senior counsel with Mr. Kiran Jain, Ish Jain, Duj Jain,
             Vinayak Siraskar and Shikhar Khandelwal i/b. M/s. Kiran Jain and Co.
             for the Applicant in BA/1232/2022.
             Mr. Kiran Jain, Ish Jain, Duj Jain, Vinayak Siraskar and Shikhar
             Khandelwal i/b. M/s. Kiran Jain and Co.for the Applicant in
             BA/1234/2022.
             Mr. Kuldeep Patil for CBI in both the applications.
             Mr. M.G. Patil, APP for Respondent State in BA/1234/2022
             Ms Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent-State in BA/1232/2022.


                                          CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 11th APRIL, 2022.

P.C.

1. These applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the

aforesaid Applicants who are facing trail in CBI Special Case No. 1638

of 2021, pending on the file of Special Judge, (CBI), Gr. Bombay for

SALGAONKAR 1 of 5 925 and 926 ba 1232 and 1234-22.doc

offences punishable under Section 120-B of IPC r/w. 420, 467 and 471

of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988.

2. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Sr. Counsel for the Applicants, Mr.

Kuldeep Patil, learned Counsel for CBI and Ms Rutuja Ambekar, learned

APP for the State. I have perused the records and considered the

submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

3. Mr. Ponda, learned Sr. Counsel, for the Applicants states that the

Applicants were not arrested prior to filing of the chargesheet. He

submits that they have appeared before the Investigating Officer. They

have been duly interrogated and that they have co-operated with the

investigation.

4. In Aman Preet Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

(Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021), the Honourable Supreme Court has

referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in its own Motion v/s.

Central Bureau of Investigation (2004) 72 DRJ 629 and has held as

under:-

"Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general

principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite

observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court

judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable

SALGAONKAR 2 of 5 925 and 926 ba 1232 and 1234-22.doc

offence whose custody was not required during the period

of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that

the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his

having not been arrested during investigation or not being

produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be

released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set

out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many

years and has not even been arrested during investigation,

to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely

because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to

the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not

agree more with this.

If we may say, the observations hereinabove would

supplement out observations made in Siddharth vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra) and must be read together

with that judgment."

5. In Satender Kumar Antil, vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

(In order dated 16.12.2021) the Honourable Supreme Court has clarified

that the direction given in Order dated 7.10.2021 were to ease the

process of bail and not to restrict it, and that the said order, in no way,

imposes and additional fetters but is in furtherance of the line of judicial

SALGAONKAR 3 of 5 925 and 926 ba 1232 and 1234-22.doc

thinking to enlarge the scope of bail. The Apex Court further held that

if during the course of investigation there has been no case to arrest,

merely because chargesheet is filed, would not be an ipso facto cause to

arrest the petitioner, which is clarified in Criminal Appeal No.838 of

2021 -in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

6. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that

the Applicants were not arrested in the course of investigation. They

have been taken into custody only after they had put in appearance

before the Special Court on receipt of summons. There is nothing on

record to indicate that the Applicants had attempted to evade the service

or tried to thwart the course of justice. Hence prima facie, the learned

Judge was not justified in taking the Applicants in custody solely in

view of filing of the chargesheet.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, in my considered

view, this is a fit case for granting interim bail. Hence the Order:

(i) The Applicants who are facing trial in CBI Special Case No. 1638

of 2021, shall be released on cash bail till the next date of hearing,

in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Only)

each for a period of two weeks;

(ii) The Applicants shall, within the said period of two weeks, furnish

bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five

SALGAONKAR 4 of 5 925 and 926 ba 1232 and 1234-22.doc

Thousand Only) each with one or two solvent sureties in the like

amount;

(iii) The Applicants shall keep the Investigating Officer /Special Court

informed of their current address and contact numbers, and /or

change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time.

8. Stand over to 20.04.2022.

9. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

Digitally signed by PRASANNA PRASANNA P P SALGAONKAR SALGAONKAR Date:

2022.04.12 18:57:29 +0530

SALGAONKAR 5 of 5