Non Reportable: J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna, J
Non Reportable: J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna, J
Non Reportable: J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna, J
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 4158/2019
Ketan Suresh Pawar & Anr. ….Petitioner (s)
Versus
Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant & Anr. …. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the
Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application No.191
of 2019. Through the said order the learned Judge of the
the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings before
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 1 of 11
the High Court, being the complainants, which culminated
in the registration of the F.I.R. No. 485 of 2014 registered
under Sec. 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC on
27.11.2014 with Khar Police Station, they are in that view
claiming to be aggrieved by the grant of bail.
State and perused the petition papers.
3. The brief facts leading to the case put forth by the
lodged a complaint against Sunita Tupsaundarya, Ramesh
Chavan, Jitendra Gadia and Yuvraj Sawant Patil. In the
complaint it is alleged that the complainant was in search
of a premises for purchase and had accordingly traced the
Estate Agent namely the Jitendra Gadia who was dealing
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 2 of 11
without the lottery system. The complainant having
regard to Jitendra Gadia is referred in the complaint and it
is alleged that the false assurances given were not fulfilled.
In that regard though cheques of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.15
lakhs were received by the complainant from Sunita Tupe
complainant was cheated to the extent of Rs.26.50 lakhs.
The case is also that in respect of the complaint the co
against them. However, the respondent No.1 herein was
arrested on 18.12.2018. In that view the respondent No.1
04.01.2019. It is in that light the petition was filed before
the High Court seeking bail. The High court having taken
consideration the nature of the offence alleged and the role
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 3 of 11
of the other coaccused, further taking note that the other
accused are granted bail, has allowed the application filed
by the respondent No.1, enlarging him on bail.
passed by the High Court does not assign any reason for
the conclusion to grant the bail. Though at this point, it is
not disputed that a detailed order has also been passed by
behalf of respondent No.1 to contend that the same was
contention that the learned Judges of the Committal Court
reasons. Despite that, the High Court without reference to
Insofar as the allegations as contained in the complaint, it
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 4 of 11
is contended that the respondent No.1 being an employee
of MHADA has indulged in committing fraud and deceiving
several persons. It is his further case that the respondent
No.1 is highly influential and in that circumstance, he had
evaded arrest till December, 2018. In view of his arrest,
additional charge sheet is to be filed. Hence his release on
bail would not be appropriate.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No.1 has, however, contended that the High
Court in fact has passed a detailed order on 13.02.2019
itself as is evident on the face of the order but if there was
delay in uploading the same it cannot affect the validity of
the order. It is pointed out that the delay in arresting the
respondent No.1 is not on account of the respondent No.1
respondent No.1 who is named Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant
persons named in the complaint. In that circumstance, it
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 5 of 11
is contended that the High Court having referred to the
played by them, has granted bail to respondent No.1. In
taken note of all aspects and exercised the discretion to
grant the bail the same does not call for interference.
6. At the outset, insofar as the contention relating to
conclusion; presently when it is noticed that the detailed
order is available, merely on the ground that the detailed
appropriate to doubt the existence of the order inasmuch
the detailed order. In that regard it cannot be lost sight
that in cases where liberty of the person is involved and
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 6 of 11
compliance the operative portion would be made available
immediately and a copy may have been retained in the file.
In that circumstance the contention on that aspect alone
construing it as a nonspeaking order.
discrepancy in the name of the respondent No. 1 in the
learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1 also need not
aspects which would remain as a defence in the trial and
the complicity or otherwise of the respondent No. 1 on that
basis would be determined therein. Therefore, limited to
the aspect relating to consideration of an application for
bail, the matter needs to be noted. Though the F.I.R. is
was arrested during December, 2018, it is not borne out
from the record that the arrest was not possible as he was
absconding or was evaded in any other manner. On the
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 7 of 11
other hand, the investigating agencies themselves had not
arrested him at an earlier point and the same cannot be
learned counsel for the petitioners herein. That apart the
observations contained in the order dated 04.01.2019 of
counsel for the petitioners that there was intervention by a
Central Minister was not based on any concrete material
and further the fact remains that the respondent No. 1 in
any event was arrested and the instant consideration was
for a regular bail and not one for anticipatory bail so as to
take the same as a basis for consideration.
sheet had been filed and the other coaccused have been
appropriate to grant the bail in favour of the respondent
petitioner herein contends that the allegations against the
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 8 of 11
custody being prior to trial the same cannot be treated as
one after conviction so as to deny the bail based only on
the allegation though in appropriate cases the same is also
would be gone into in the trial. Even if a supplementary
charge sheet is required to be filed, the respondent No. 1
was available in custody from the date of his arrest till the
grant of bail. That apart, the State/Investigating Agency
contending that his custody is required for interrogation.
available. In addition, it is seen that the respondent No. 1
there is no material on record to indicate that as on today
any of the conditions imposed while granting bail has been
violated. Needless to mention that if the respondent No.1
regard.
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 9 of 11
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
Chandrakeshwar Prasad @ Chandu Babu & Anr. vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 443 to contend that
in the said case it was held that the High Court had erred
in granting bail to the respondent accused therein without
having a bearing on the exercise of its discretion on the
indicated that the accused is a habitual offender and he
imprisonment and also named in several criminal cases.
The accused therein was also a categoryA history sheeter
background in the case which was being dealt with and
with the offence of facilitating the murder of a witness in a
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 10 of 11
relating to consideration of a bail application the facts of
cannot be termed as erroneous.
10. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the
leave petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
…………………….….J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
……………………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
August 27, 2019
SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019
Page 11 of 11