Supreme Court of India
FIDA HUSSAIN BOHRAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 309
- Decided
- 3 March 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The High Court was not justified in setting aside the anticipatory bail as the appellant had complied with the conditions and the investigating agency had accepted their relaxation.
Summary
The appellant, Fida Hussain Bohra, was accused of embezzling approximately Rs. 26 crore and was granted anticipatory bail by an Additional Sessions Judge subject to conditions. He complied with those conditions, and the investigating agency later agreed to relax them. The High Court set aside the bail order, but the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in doing so, as the appellant had fulfilled the conditions and the investigating agency did not object. The Court emphasized that the amount involved is a factor, not the sole consideration, and that the factual matrix must guide bail decisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, reinstated the anticipatory bail, and issued directions for future compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge.
- Whether compliance with bail conditions and relaxation by the investigating agency precludes cancellation of bail.
- To what extent the quantum of alleged embezzlement influences the grant or cancellation of bail.
- Whether a person not named in the FIR can be granted anticipatory bail based on statements of co‑accused.
Legislation cited
Subjects
anticipatory bailbail cancellationpublic fund embezzlementSection 482 CrPCcompliance with bail conditionsinvestigating agency
Judgment
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 998
A FIDA HUSSAIN BOHRA -\
II.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 2009)
MARCH 3, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.)
Bail - Anticipatory bail - Embezzlement of public fund -
Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to appellant subject
c to conditions - High Court setting aside the order -
Justification of - Held: Not justified - Appellant had complied
with conditions mentioned in the order passed by the
Sessions Judge - The Investigating agency itself was satisfied
with the conduct of appellant vis-a-vis that order and
D furthermore did not object to relaxation of the conditions of ~
bail.
According to the prosecution, the appellant was
involved in embezzlement of public fund to the tune of
about Rs. 26 crores. Appellant applied for and was
E
,granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge subject
to certain conditions. High Court set aside the order of
the Sessions Judge.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the
..
F appellant did abide by the conditions laid down in the
order granting anticipatory bail and the investigating
age11cy itself having given out that the strict conditions
imposed thereby be suitably relaxed, the High Court
erred in canceling the anticipatory bail granted to
G appellant by the Sessions Judge.
~
Allowing the appeal with directions, the Court
HELD: 1. Correctness or otherwise of the orders
H 998
FIDA HUSSAIN BOHRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 999
,..
passed by the appellate court setting aside an order A
granting bail or an order of cancellation of bail, is required
to be considered on the factual matrix involved in each
case. For the purpose of grant of bail the amount involved
may be of some relevance but not the only consideration.
[Paras 9 and 10] [1002-H; 1003-A] B
2. Appellant was not named in the FIR. His complicity
{ '
in the commission of the alleged crime came to light only
from the statements made by the other accused persons
- during investigation. He was granted anticipatory bail
subject to the conditions mentioned therein. He complied
with the said conditions. According to the appellant he
had produced all books of accounts and has been fully
c
cooperating with the investigating agency. The
•·I investigating agency accepted that the conditions for
D
grant of anticipatory bail may be relaxed. If the
investigating agency itself was satisfied with the conduct
of the appellant vis-a-vis of the orders passed by the
Sessions Judge and furthermore did not object to
relaxation of the conditions of bail, one fails to
understand as to on what premise the High Court could E
be approached for setting aside the order granting bail.
. [Para 1O] [1003-B-E]
3. Also, appellant had remained on bail for a long
time. If matters relating to the involvement of the appellant F
.... in the crime vis-a-vis the other accused were required to
be further probed, the Sessions Judge again could have
been approached. [Paras 11 and 12] [1003-F-G]
4. If a huge amount had been paid on the basis of
bogus bills without any supply of medicine or other G
•; articles having been made, one fails to understand as to
on what basis bail could be granted to other accused
persons while depriving the appellant from obtaining the
said benefit. It is also beyond anybody's comprehension
H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
A as to why the High Court was not moved for cancellation
of bail granted in favour of other public servants. [Para
12] [1004-A-C]
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
Interest of justice would be sub-served if it is directed that
B
the appellant shall in the event, any application therefor
is filed by the investigation agency may be interrogated 'l
at any time suitable for the Investigating Officer either
alone or with other accused persons, shall be allowed.
Appellant shall comply with such other direction or
c directions as may be issued by the Sessions Judge, if
and when, the Sessions Judge passes an order at the
-
instance of the investigating agency or otherwise relying
or on the basis of these observations. [Para 13] [1004-C-
!:]
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 420 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.08 of the High
Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Criminal Application
E
No.1117 of 2008.
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Arundhanti S. Sukhtankar and
Naresh Kumar for the Appellants.
F Aparajita Singh, Atul Dakh and Ravindra Keshavrao
Adsure for the Respondent.
..
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied ..'
with a Judgmen.t and Order dated 3rd December, 2008 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur whereby and whereunder an Order dated 19-12-2007
H passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola
FIDA HUSSAIN BOHRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1001
[S.B. SINHA, J.)
>
t".1-
granting anticipatory bail in his favour was set aside. A
3. Civil Surgeon, Akola lodged a First Information Report
on or about 30th November, 2006 alleging that since the year
2000, several officers of the LDH Hospital Murtijapur and
National Cooperative Consumer Federation of India Ltd., its 8
authorized suppliers, subordinate suppliers etc. committed
(
< criminal misappropriation of the public fund.
Appellant was not named therein. Indisputably most of the
accused named in the First Information Report or made
accused subsequently filed applications for grant of anticipatory c
bail and/or regular bail which have been allowed. It is stated
that brother of the appellant was also arrested. He named the
appellant as also the authorized suppliers. It was disclosed by
'J the authorized suppliers that the appellant is the real beneficiary
of the amount misappropriated as they were being paid only a D
sum of Rs. 2000/- per month by him.
4. Appellant applied for and was granted anticipatory bail
by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola subject to the condition
that he would attend the office of C.l.D Akola thrice a week E
between 11 :00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. till completion of investigation.
Indisputably the said order has been complied with.
~
5. On an application filed by the appellant for relaxation of
the said condition and the response thereto filed by the C.1.0.,
the said condition was relaxed by an Order dated 18th April, F
2008 directing the appellant to attend the office of the C.l.D only
twice a month. It is said that the C.l.D itself stated that it was
not necessary for him to attend their office thrice a week.
6. Prior thereto the State filed an application purported to G
-'II
j
be under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.) before the High Court questioning the correctness of
the said order granting anticipatory bail to the appellant on 19-
12-2007. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said
application has been allowed. H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.
... \
A 7. Mr. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant would submit that the High Court has committed
a serious error in passing the impugned Judgment as by reason
whereof anticipatory bail granted in favour by the learned
Sessions Judge has illegally been cancelled.
B
It was urged that keeping in view the fact that the appellant
had abided by the conditions laid down in the order granting )
,
anti¢ipatory bail and the investigating agency itself having given
out that the strict conditions imposed thereby may suitably be
C relaxed, the High Court must be held to have committed a
seri<1>us error in passing the impugned Judgment.
8. Ms. Aparajita Singh, learned counsel appearing on
beh<11lf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that
the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a serious
D error in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant on the premise
that the period involved in respect of commission of the offence
was'2001-2007; whereas in fact the period involved was 1-04-
2005 to 7-10-2006.
E It was urged that no reliance should have been placed on
the statement of the store keeper of the hospital that the
medicines etc. allegedly supplied by the authorized suppliers
had been received, inasmuch as he himself being an accused
must have made such a statement with a view to save his own
skin.
F
Appellant was the kingpin and the amount involved in the
matter is about 26 crores which has been embezzled by the
accused without making any supplies and by raising bogus
bills.
G
The High Court in its impugned Judgment has rightly ...
pointed out that there exists a distinction between an appeal
from an order granting bail and an order of cancellation of bail.
9. Correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the
H appellate court setting aside an order granting bail or an order
FIDA HUSSAIN BOHRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1003
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
)',
of cancellation of bail, in our opinion is required to be A
T considered on the factual matrix involved in each case.
10. For the purpose of grant of bail the amount involved
may be of some relevance but not the only consideration.
The First Information Report was lodged in 30th B
November, 2006. Appellant was not named therein. His
I complicity in the commission of the alleged crime came to light
only from the statements made by the other accused persons
during investigation.
c
He was granted anticipatory bail subject to the conditions
mentioned therein. He indisputably complied with the said
conditions. According to the appellant he had produced all
.... books of accounts and has fully been cooperating with the
• investigating agency. The investigating agency, as noticed
f D
hereinbefore, accepted that the conditions for grant of
anticipatory bail may be relaxed. If the investigating agency
itself was satisfied with the conduct of the appellant vis-a-vis
of the orders passed by the learned Additional Judge and
furthermore did not object to relaxation of the conditions of bail,
E
we fail to understand as to on what premise they could
approach the High Court for setting aside the order granting
·" bail.
... 11. Appellant had remained on bail for a long time; the
impugned judgment having been passed only on 3-12-2008. If
the investigating agency was of the opinion that custodial
F
interrogation or interrogation of the appellant in presence of the
other accused was necessary, the learned Sessions Judge
could have moved in that behalf.
G
1 12. If matters relating to the involvement of the appellant
; in the crime vis-a-vis the other accused were required to be
further probed, the Sessions Judge again could have been
approached.
We would assume that the appellant was involved in H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A regard to the commission of offence for the period in question
namely 1-04-2005 to 7-10-2006.
We would also assume that the statement of store-keeper
-
was not correct. If his statement was not correct and if a huge
amount has been paid on the basis of bogus bills without any
8
supply of medicine or other articles having been made, we fail
to understand as to on what basis bail could be granted to other '1
accused persons including the store-keeper while depriving the
appellant from obtaining the said benefit. It is also beyond
anybody's comprehension as to why the High Court was not
C moved for cancellation of bail granted in favour of other public
servants including the store keeper.
13. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the facts and
circumstances of this case interest of justice would be sub-
D served if it is directed that the appellant shall in the event, any
application therefor is filed by the investigation agency may be
interrogated at any time suitable for the Investigating Officer
~ither alone or with other accused persons, shall be allowed.
Appellant shall comply with such other direction or directions
E as may be issued by the learned Sessions Judge, if and when,
the learned Sessions Judge passes an order at the instance
af the investigating agency or otherwise relying or on the basis
of these observations.
14. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
F jwdgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed with the
aforementioned directions.
8.8.8. Appeal allowed.
•
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "anticipatory bail"Sign in to search