Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court breached the mandatory proviso of Section 439(1) CrPC, rendering its bail order perverse, and therefore the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail.

Summary

The appellant, Gulabrao Baburao Deokar, was charged along with 56 others for a massive defalcation of public funds amounting to Rs.169.60 crore involving the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation. He was granted bail by the Sessions Court under Section 439(1) CrPC, but the High Court cancelled the bail on grounds of procedural irregularities and alleged witness intimidation. The Supreme Court examined whether the Sessions Court complied with the mandatory proviso of Section 439(1) requiring notice to the public prosecutor and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the bail. It held that the Sessions Court failed to give the prosecutor a proper opportunity and passed a perverse order, making the High Court's cancellation proper. The Court also affirmed the locus standi of the respondents to invoke Sections 439(2) and 482 CrPC. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the trial transferred to Dhule.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in cancelling the bail granted by the Sessions Court.
Whether the Sessions Court complied with the proviso to Section 439(1) CrPC requiring notice to the public prosecutor.
Whether the cancellation of bail was justified on the basis of alleged witness intimidation and the seriousness of the economic offence.
Whether respondents Nos.2‑4 had locus standi to file an application under Sections 439(2) and 482 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 160, s. 439(1), s. 439(2), s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120-B, s. 34, s. 406, s. 409, s. 411, s. 420, s. 465, s. 466, s. 468, s. 471
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(c), s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2)

Subjects

bailcancellation of bailSection 439 CrPCeconomic offencewitness intimidationperverse orderhigh court jurisdictiontransfer of trialpublic prosecutor

Judgment

[2013] 16 S.C.R. 1181

GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2113 of 2013)

DECEMBER 17, 2013
8
[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

Bail - Cancellation of - Propriety - Economic offences
- Defalcation of public money resulting into huge Joss to the
City Municipal Corporation - Number of accused including C
the appellant - Offence alleged punishable with imprisonment
for life - Appellant granted bail by the Sessions Judge u/
s.439(1) CrPC - High Court, however, allowed application filed
by resn";;dent Nos.2 to 4 ulss.439(2) and 482. CrPC and
cancelled the bail granted to the appellant - On appeal, held: D
Order passed by the Sessions Court was an order passed in
breach of the mandatory requirement of the proviso to s. 439(1)
CrPC - The Sessions Court did not grant proper and full
opportunity to the prosecutor to point out as to why bail should
not be granted to the appellant - Order passed by the E
Sessions Court was perverse since none of the factors pointed
out by the prosecutor were considered by it - When the
prosecutor had pointed out to the Sessions Court that the role
of the appellant was no Jess than that of the three other
accused whose bail had been rejected, the ·Sessions Court F
ought to have considered these circumstances, justifying
custodial interrogation, with due diligence - High Court is
empowered uls. 439(2) CrPC to set aside an unjustified, illegal
or perverse order granting bail - On facts, the order passed
by the High Court recorded cogent and overwhelming
circumstances justifying cancellation of bail - Besides, as G
attempts were made by the appellant to pressurize the
witnesses and even the investigating officer, the order of the
High Court cancelling the bail cannot be faulted on that
1181 H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 16 S.C.R.

A ground also - However, trial of this nature, for that matter every
trial, ought to be conducted in a free and fearless atmosphere
- Trial of the Sessions case in question accordingly
transferred to the adjoining district in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case - Code of Criminal Procedure,
B 1973 - ss.439 and 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.120-B, 406,
409, 411, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 109 rlw s.34 - Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(2) rlw s.13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d).

The appellant (alongwith 56 others) was charged for
offences under Sections 120-8, 406, 409, 411, 420, 465,
C 466, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 IPC, and under
Sections 13(2) read with 13(1 )(c) and 13(1 )(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge-sheet
was essentially about defalcation of public money
resulting into a huge loss of over Rs.169.60 crores to the
D Jalgaon Municipal Corporation in Maharashtra. It was
inter a/ia alleged against the appellant that the Jalgaon
Municipal Corporation had illegally given more than 30
contracts to the Construction Company belonging to the
appellant as a beneficiary in the conspiracy. Accused no.
E 31 to 50 including the appellant were granted bail by the
Sessions Judge under Section 439(1) CrPC. The High
Court, however, by the impugned order allowed the
application filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 under Section
439 (2) and 482 of CrPC and cancelled the bail granted
F to appellant.

The question which arose for consideration in the
present appeal was whether the High Court erred in
cancelling the bail granted to the appellant.

G Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1.1. In the instant case, the Sessions Court
had not complied with the mandatory proviso to Section
439(1) CrPC which lays down that before granting bail to
H a person who is accused of an offence which is
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR v. STATE OF 1183
MAHARASHTRA
punishable with imprisonment for life (as in the case of A
appellant), and which is exclusively triable by the Court
of Sessions, it shall give a notice of the application for
bail to the public prosecutor. In the instant case, the
appellant appeared before the Sessions Judge, when his
application for bail was taken up for consideration. The
8
Sessions Judge passed an order '1.0. to say' but the
matter was taken up there and then. The notice under the
proviso under the Section 439 (1) implies a proper and
full opportunity to the"prosecutor to point out as to why
bail should not be granted. The initial chargesheet in the
instant case was itself running into more than 268 pages. C
The Sessions Judge ought to have granted adequate
time to the prosecutor to reply on the basis of this
chargesheet, for him to pass a considered order.
Consequently the order of bail does not reflect upon the
contents of the charge sheet. [Para 23] [1199-G-H; 1200- D
A-D]

1.2. As pointed out by the Investigating Officer [Deputy
S.P., Jalgaon] in his affidavit that although the matter was
heard there and then, the prosecutor did make a detailed E
argument pointing ought the prima facie case against the
appellant. The past conduct of the appellant after the
registration of the present crime was also pointed out in
detail as well as his criminal antecedents with proof, and
also· the fact that the bail applications of 3 of the main F
accused (i.e. Sureshdada Jain and others) had been
rejected by another Sessions Judge. That there was a
1wrongful loss of about Rs.169 crores to Jalgaon Municipal
Council was also brought to the notice of the Court. The
order passed by the Trial Court was thus a perverse order G
since none of these factors were considered by the Court.
[Para 24] [1200-E-G]

1.3. The prosecutor applied for remand of at least 2
days which was declined. Obviously the prosecutor
H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 .S.C.R.

A required time to interrogate the accused, and the
custodial interrogation in such a situation, for at least two
days, could not have been denied. It could have aided the
investigation by unearthing relevant information. The bail
order was however passed ori the same day, there and
then. Though the liberty of a citizen even if he is an
8 accused is undoubtedly important, but at the same time
when the prosecutor had pointed out to the Court that
the role of the appellant was no less than that of the three
others whose bail had been rejected, the Judge ought to
have considered these circumstances, justifying
C custodial interrogation, with due diligence. [Paras 23, 25]
[1200-C; 1201-A-D]

1.4. The order passed by the Sessions Judge was an
order passed in breach of the mandatory requirement of
o the proviso to Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C. It is also an order
ignoring the material on record, and therefore without any
justification and perverse. The High Court does have the
power under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. to set aside an
unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting bail. This is
E an independent ground for cancellation as against the
ground of accused mis-conducting himself. [Para 26]
[1201-D-F]

1.5. In the instant case, the attempts made by the
appellant to pressurize the witnesses and even the
F investigating officer are clearly placed on record through
the affidavit of the Deputy S.P. (the Investigating Officer).
On that ground also it could be said that the appellant will
be pressurizing the witnesses if he is not restrained. This
being the position, one cannot find any fault with the
G order of the High Court cancelling the bail on that ground
also. The order does record the cogent and
overwhelming circumstances justifying cancellation of
bail. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence
and its impact on the society are always important
H
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR v. STATE OF 1185
MAHARASHTRA
considerations in such a case, and they must squarely A
be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail
applications. [Para 27] [1201-F-H; 1202-A]

1.6. The objection raised by the appellant that
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had no locus to file an application 8
seeking cancellation of bail, cannot be sustained.
Respondent nos. 2 to 4 had invoked the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC,
and the High Court has power to entertain such
application. [Paras 28, 29 and 30] [1202-B, H; 1203-B]
c
Puran vs. Rambilas and another 2001 (6) SCC 338:
2001 (3) SCR 432 - relied on.

Do/at Ram vs. State of Haryana 1995 (1) SCC 349: 1994
(6) Suppl. SCR 69; Bhagirathsinh vs. State of Gujarat 1984 o
(1) SCC 284: 1984 (1) SCR 839; Fida Hussain Bohra vs.
State of Maharashtra 2009 (5) SCC 150: 2009 (3) SCR 998;
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and
others 2011 (1) SCC 694: 2010 (15) SCR 201; Gurcharan
Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1978 (1) SCC 118: E
1978 (2) SCR 358; State of UP. vs. Amarmani Tripathi 2005
(8) SCC 21: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454; Masroor vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another 2009 (14) SCC 286: 2009 (6) SCR
1030 and Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation 2013(7) SCC 466 - referred to.
F
2. Although this appeal is not being entertained, it is
found that the appellant along with 4 other accused who
have been denied bail, had made numerous attempts to
intimidate the witnesses, and even threatened the
investigating officer. Some of the witnesses are the G
employees of the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation, and
obviously the appellant and the 4 accused, though in jail,
may still make every effort to influence them hereafter,
and vitiate the trial if it is conducted in Jalgaon. A trial of
H
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A this nature, for that matter every trial, ought to be
conducted in a free and fearless atmosphere. Hence, in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial
of this Sessions case ought to be transferred outside that
district. The transfer to the district Dhule, would be
B appropriate since that district is adjoining to the Jalgaon
district, and it also falls within the jurisdiction of the
Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. [Para 31]
{1203-F, G; 1204-B-C]

Case Law Reference :
c
1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 69 i"eferred to Para 11
1984 (1) SCR 839 referred to Para 12
2009 (3) SCR 998 referred to Para 17
D
2010 (15) SCR 201 referred to Para 18
2001 (3) SCR 432 relied on Para 19
1978 (2) SCR 358 referred to Para 19
E 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 referred to Para 20

2009 (6) SCR 1030 referred to Para 21
2013(7) sec 466 referred to Para 22

F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2131 of 2013.

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2012 of the
High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.
2522 of 2012.
G
A. V. Savant, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Vatsalya Vigya,
for the Appellant.

B. H. Maralapalle, V. N. Raghupathy, Amol B. Karande,
H
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR v. STATE OF 1187
MAHARASHTRA

Manju Jetly, Sanjay Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair for the A
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H.L. GOKHALE, J. 1.Leave granted.
B
2. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order
dated 6.8.2012 rendered by a Judge of the Bombay High Court
at Aurangabad allowing the Criminal Application No. 2522/
2012 filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein under Section
439 (2) and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. c
for short). The High Court order cancelled the bail granted to
the appellant herein in Crime No.13/2006 registered at the City
Police Station, Jalgaon. The appellant (alongwith 56 others) has
been charged for offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 409,
411, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 of 0
Indian Penal Code (l.P.C for short), and under Sections 13(2)
read with 13(1) (c) and 13(1) (d} of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. The appellant is accused no.34 in that case. The
appellant was granted bail on 21.5.2012 by a common order
below the applications filed by accused nos. 31 to 50 under E
Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C. by the lncharge Additional Adhoc
District Judge No.1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.
It is this order which has been set-aside by the High Court. The
operation of the High Court has been stayed by this Court on
7.8.2012.
F
3. Mr. A.V. Savant, learned senior counsel and Mr.
Sudhanshu Chaudhary have appeared for the appellant. Mr.
Sanjay Kharde, learned counsel has appeared for the first
respondent-State of Maharashtra. Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, learned
senior counsel and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel have G
appeared for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

4. The above referred Crime/FIR No.13/2006 was
registered at the City Police Station, Jalgaon on 3.2.2006. The
Charge-sheet therein came to be filed after completion of the H
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A investigation much later on 25.4.2012. It is essentially about the
defalcation of public money resulting into a huge loss of over
Rs.169.60 crores to the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation in
Maharashtra. This Corporation was a Municipal Council until
about January 2004. It had framed a housing scheme in the year
1997 named as 'Gharkul' (i.e. Small house) to construct 11,424
8
houses on the Municipal land for the benefit of slum dwellers.
As stated above, although there are 57 accused, the main
persons involved in this defalcation are stated to be two former
Presidents of the erstwhile Municipal Council, namely, one Shri
Sureshdada Jain and one Pradeep Raysoni, and two partners
C of a construction company known as Khandesh Builders viz.
Rajendra Mayur and Jagannath Vani. Shri Sureshdada Jain is
said to be the main share-holder of this company.

5. Shri Sureshdada ·Jain is stated to have been the
o President of Jalgaon Municipal Council from May 1985 to July
1994. Thereafter he was the Minister of Housing in the
Shivsena-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Government. in the
State, during 1995-2000. He is presently an MLA of Nationalist
Congress Party (NCP) from Jalgaon city. He was a minister in
E the present Congress-NCP Government until recently. The
appellant is also an MLA of NCP from Jalgaon (Rural)
Constituency, and on the date of the impugned order he was a
Minister of State in the State Government. Subsequently he has
resigned as a Minister. Out of the 57 accused persons 4 have
F died. Out of the remaining, 2 accused are absconding, and the
above referred 2 former Presidents and 2 contractors are in
custody. Remaining 47 accused including the appellant have
been granted bail.

6. In 1997 when he was a Minister of Housing, Shri
G Sureshdada Jain persuaded HUDCO to give loan of about 66
crores to the Jalgaon Municipal Council for the above Housing
Scheme. He is said to have been instrumental in constituting
a 'High Powered Committee' in the Municipal Council which
was to supervise this work. The appellant was one of its
H
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR v. STATE OF 1189
MAHARASHTRA[H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

members. The scheme was to be completed in 9 months but A
has not been completed so far. Pradeep Raysoni was the
President of the Municipal Council during May 1996 to May
1997. As per the Charge-sheet the execution of the scheme
was entrusted to Khandesh builders, violating all norms, and
statutory and other legal requirements. They have been given B
huge interest-free mobilization advances which amongst other
reasons have led to this huge liability. The work not having been
completed, and the loan not having been repaid, the liabilities
for the Municipal Corporation towards the interest amount have
increased, and it will take quite a few years for the Corporation c
to repay the loan.

7. The above referred Shri Sureshdada Jain was arrested
sometimes in March, 2012, and the charge-sheet has been filed
on 25.4.2012. The appellant was issued a notice dated
16.5.2012 under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. to attend at the Jalgaon D
Police Station on 19.5.2012. Accused nos. 31 to 50 including
the appellant applied for bail under Section 439(1 ), and they
were so released by the above referred order passed on
21.5.2012. This order has been set aside by the impugned
order of the High Court. We are informed that the charges have E
been framed by the trial court, and the recording of the evidence
is yet to start. Out of various charges, the charge under Section
409 has not been framed, but Mr. Sanjay Kharde, learned
counsel for the State, has informed us that the State is going
to apply for framing of the charge under this section also. A F
supplementary charge sheet has also been filed on 2.6.2012.

8. The initial charge-sheet leading to the prosecution has
been placed on record. It runs into more than 268 pages and
contains various details. Shri Sureshdada Jain is said to have G
led the majority in the Jalgaon Municipal Council at the relevant
time under a group known as the 'Shahar Vikas Aghadi' (i.e.
City Development Front). It is alleged that Shri Sureshdada Jain
in his capacity as the Minister decided to use the lower income
group scheme for wrongful gain, which ha~ resulted into huge H
1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 16 S.C.R.

A liability to the Municipal Corporation, and wrongful gain for
himself and other conspirators. It is alleged that he arranged
the funds from HUDCO for this particular project, and saw to it
that the contract is given to Khandesh builders at exorbitant
rates, ignoring the lower bid given by another contractor. The
B councilors were made to approve all the decisions of the above
referred committee which was controlled by earlier referred
Pradeep Raysoni. The investigation revealed that the
committee was only for the namesake, and it was Raysoni who
was taking all the decisions. No written orders were passed.
c Large advances were released to the builders under what was
called as 'Ummeed Manjuri' (i.e. approval in anticipation), and
all the Municipal Councilors were made to sign those decisions.

9. When the accused no. 31 to 50 including the appellant
moved for bail under Section 439, the respondent No.2 herein
D appeared in the proceeding and sought permission to assist
the Special Public Prosecutor. This is recorded in the order of
the Sessions Judge. The order records the objection that it was
a serious economic offence involving public money, and that
the appellant was a powerful and influential person in Jalgaon,
E and there was a possibility that he may misuse his liberty and
tamper with the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has
however observed that beyond the aforesaid ap..,rer.ension
nothing has been pointed out that the appellant had misused
his status. The learned Judge has then observed that
F considering the nature of the offence, it may be said that the
evidence to be collected and available with the prosecution must
be in the form of documents, and the apprehension by
pressurizing the prosecution witnesses can be checked by
imposing reasonable conditions. The learned Judge therefore
G observed that there was no point in detaining the accused in
jail particularly in the circumstances when the investigation of
the crime was on the verge of completion. The Judge, therefore,
released all those accused nos. 31 to 50 on personal bonds
in the sum of Rs.50, 000/- with one solvent surety in the like
H amount.
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR v. STATE OF 1191
MAHARASHTRA[H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

10. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 sought to set-aside this A
order by filing Criminal Application No. 2522 of 2012 dated
11.6.2012, and the High Court has allowed it, by passing the
impugned order. The High Court has noted in its order that:-

(i) The appellant was arrested on 21.5.2012 and was B
produced before the Special Court along with some councillors
on the same day with the remand report. Bail application was
moved on the same day.

(ii) In paragraph 14 of his order the learned Judge noted
that under the proviso to Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C. where the C
person concerned is accused of an offence which is punishable
with imprisonment of life (such as Section 409 l.P.C. in the
present case), the Sessions Judge has to give the notice of
the application for bail to the public prosecutor, unless for the
reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not practicable to give D
such notice. In the instant case, no order was made giving
notice to the public prosecutor, nor reasons for the same were
recorded in the order granting bail. The only order made on the
very day was "1.0. (i.e. investigation officer) to say". The matter
was heard immediately there and then. E

(iii) Even so, the special prosecutor had requested for
police custody at least for 2 days. The same was, however,
refused. He then filed a reply running into 8 pages to oppose
the application, but the order passed by the learned Session
F
Judge did not refer to this reply or the contents thereof.

(iv) Paragraph 15 of the impugned order notes that the
appellant was not detained nor kept behind the bars even for
a single day. This was in spite of the fact that there was a record
like giving 5 work orders to the brother of the appellant, and G
during custodial investigation more material could have been
collected.

11. The learned Judge has noted in paragraph 16 of his
order that cogent and overwhelming circumstances are H
1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A necessary for an order of cancellation of bail already granted,
as laid down by this Court from time to time. He has referred
to the judgment in Do/at Ram Vs. State of Haryana reported
in 1995 (1) SCC 349 in this behalf. He has, however, also
observed in paragraph 17 that if the order is by a wrong and
B arbitrary exercise of discretion, it de.serves to be cancelled. He
has further observed that nature and seriousness of the offence
and impact on the society particularly in economic offences are
always important considerations in such a case.

C 12. Mr. A.V. Savant, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant has relied upon various judgments to submit that
cancellation of bail is not something to be easily granted. He
has drawn our attention the judgment of this Court in
Bhagirathsinh Vs. State· of Gujarat reported in 1984 (1) SCC
284 where this Court has observed that very cogent and
D overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
seeking cancellation of bail, and power to grant bail is not to
be exercised as if it is a punishment before the trial. The Court
has held in that matter that the material considerations in such
a situation are whether the accused would be readily available
E for his trial, and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion
granted in his favour by tampering with evidence.

13. Mr. Pandharinath Ramchandra Pawar, Deputy S.P.,
Jalgaon, who is the investigating officer, has filed a detailed
F affidavit in reply, dated 28.9.2012, in this Court, placing on
record voluminous material as to how Shri Sureshdada Jain
and some of the principal accused including the appellant have
resorted to pressure tactics at various stages of the case.
Amongst other statements against the appellant, he has
G specifically placed on record the following material:-

(i) In paragraph 5 (iii) of his affidavit he has placed on
record that the appellant brought a 'morcha' (i.e. a procession
to protest) on the police station on 29.3.2006. He has stated
therein as follows:-
H
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR v. STATE OF 1193
MAHARASHTRA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
"That right from the time when the crime was registered, A
the petitioner-accused have tried to create pressure on
investigation machinery by bringing morcha on police
station by the leadership of petitioner and Suresh Jain
and demanding arrest of themselves by police, therefore,
offence was registered against the Councillors including B
the present petitioner as crime no.2712006 on 29.3.2006."
He has annexed the extract of the station diary entry dated
30.3.2006 as Annexure R2 to this affidavit. This extract from
the station diary records that some of the Municipal Councillors
including the appellant had moved a no-confidence motion C
against the Municipal Commissioner, Mr. Praveen Gedam, who
had lodged the complaint leading to this prosecution, and then
these councillors created a ruckus in the Council Hall.
Thereafter, they took out a 'morcha' to the police station and
held a demonstration. The appellant is specifically named in this D
station diary entry, as a person leading the 'morcha'.
(ii) Thereafter, he has placed on record that Sureshdada
Jain and his associates, including the appellant, on various
occasions resorted to pressure tactics like taking out the
'morcha', threatening the investigation officer, slapping the civil E
surgeon and so on, and thereby they created an atmosphere
of terror in the city. Thereafter in this connection he has stated
in paragraph XXV and XXVI as follows:-
"[XXVJ All the above conduct clearly shows that the F
petitioner himself and through his supporters sent a
message in society that they are able to teach a lesson
to the witnesses, the Complainant, who is I.A. S. Officer,
Investigation Officer, who is l.P. S. Officer, Jailor, who is
class one Officer and Dr. Rathod, who is a/so class one
Officer of Civil Hospital then, anybody may not dare to G
go against them.
[XXVI] Moreover, they have created terrorized
atmosphere in the society of Jalgaon city. In fact, most
of the witnesses in this case are ordinary people and H
1194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 16 S.C.R.

A many witnesses are employee in Jalgaon Municipa
Corporation, in which, the party of this group is in power
Therefore, considering, the human probabilities,
witnesses will not come forward to depose against the
present accused and other accused."
B 14. Mr. A.V. Savant, learned senior counsel for the
appellant submitted that these allegations are essentially
against Sureshdada Jain and not so much against the appellant
herein. It is difficult to accept this submission. The station diary
entry dated 30.3.2006 specifically records the name of the
C appellant as amongst those who took out the 'morcha' to the
police station. It is also clear from what the Deputy S.P. has
stated in his affidavit that the appellant was associated with Shri
Sureshdada Jain on different occasions when an attempt was
made to take the law into hands.
D 15. It is specifically stated in the paragraph 4 of the above
referred affidavit of Mr. Pawar that a detailed argument was
made before the Sessions Judge on beha!f of the prosecution
pointing out a prima facie case against the appellant. It is also
stated therein that the Jalgaon Municipal Council had illegally
E given more than 30 contracts to Jalgaon Construction Company
belonging to the appellant as the beneficiary in the conspiracy.
The past conduct of the appellant after the registration of the
present crime was pointed out in detail, as well as his criminal
antecedents with proof, and also the fact that the bail
F applications of 3 of the main accused (i.e. Sureshdada Jain
and others) had been rejected by another Sessions Judge by
the orders dated 17.5.2012 and 19.5.2012. That there was a
wrongful loss of about Rs.169 crores to Jalgaon Municipal
Council was also brought to the notice of the Court. The counsel
G for the State of Maharashtra has, therefore, submitted that the
order passed by the Sessions Judge was a perverse order
since none of these factors was considered by the Court.
16. Mr. Savant, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that it is a well established proposition that
H
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR v. STATE OF 1195
MAHARASHTRA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
"bail not jail" is the rule of law, and cancellation of bail is not to A
be lightly resorted to. He referred to the judgment of this Court
in Bhagirathsinh (supra) where the appellant facing the charge
under Section 307 IPC, was granted bail by the Sessions
Judge, but the bail was cancelled by the ,High Court. In
paragraph 7 of the judgment this Court has observed as B
follows:-
"7. In our opinion, the learned Judge appears to have
misdirected himself while examining the question of
directing cancellation of bail by interfering with a
discretionary order made by the learned Sessions Judge. C
One could have appreciated the anxiety of the learned
Judge of the High Court that in the circumstances found
by him that the victim attacked was a social and political
worker and therefore the accused should not be granted
bail but we fail to appreciate how that circumstance D
should be considered so overriding as to permit
interference with a discretionary order of the learned
Sessions Judge granting bail. The High Court completely
overlooked the fact that it was not for it to decide whether
the bail should be granted but the application before it E
was for cancellation of the bail. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
seeking cancellation of the bail and the trend today is
towards granting bail because it is now we/I-settled by a
catena of decisions of this Coart-that the power to grant F
bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before
trial is being imposed. The only material considerations
in such a situation are whether the accused would be
readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to
abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering G
with evidence. The order made by the High Court is
conspicuous by its silence on these two relevant
considerations. It is for these reasons that we consider
in the interest of justice a compelling necessity to
interfere with the order made by the High Court."
H
1196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C R

A 17. Thereafter he referred to the judgment in Fida Hussain
Bohra Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 (5) SCC 150
where in the case of a chaFge involving criminal
misappropriation of public funds some accused were granted
bail, but the High Court had cancelled the bail granted to the
B appellant. This Court held that the appeal from an order
granting bail had to be considered differently. It is, however,
material to note that this Court also observed in paragraph 8
that correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the
Appellate Court setting aside an order granting bail or an order
c of cancellation of bail had to be considered on particular facts
of each case.
18. The judgment of this Court in Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported on 2011
(1) SCC 694 was heavily relied upon, wherein this Court has
D held that where the accused has joined the investigation, is
cooperating with the investigating agency, and is not likely to
abscond, custodial interrogation should be avoided.
19. These submissions were countered by the counsel for
the respondents. They referred to what this Court has observed
E in paragraphs 10 and 11 of Puran Vs. Rambilas and another
reported in 2001 (6) SCC 338. In paragraph 10 this Court has
referred to Dau/at Ram Vs. State of Haryana (supra) which
was also referred to by the High Court in the impugned order.
After referring to this judgment, this Court has noted that rejection
F of a bail in a non-bailable case at an initial stage or a
cancellation of bail already granted had to be considered on
different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances
are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail
already granted. The Court has also noted that it has been held
G that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail
broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of justice or evasion or abuse of the
concession granted to the accused. Thereafter, this Court has
observed in paragraph 10:-
H "10 ... ..... It is, however, to be noted that this Court has
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR v. STATE OF 1197
MAHARASHTRA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and ·A
not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail
would be where ignoring material and evidence on record
a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous
crime of this nature and that too without giving any
reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. B
Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse
order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be
remembered that such offences are on the rise and have
a very serious impact on the society. Therefore, an
arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial court c
has to be corrected." I
In paragraph 11, the Court has referred to the judgment in
iurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported .in
978 (1) sec 118, and thereafter observed that the remedy
nder Section 439(2) to approach the High Court is also D
vailable where the State is aggrieved by the Sessions Judge
ranting bail on the basis of unjustified, illegal or perverse order.
his paragraph 11 reads as follows:-
" 11. Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of
setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order E
is totally different from the concept of cancelling the
bail on the ground that the accused has
misconducted himself or because of some new facts
requiring such cancellation. This position is· made clear
by this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn. F
((1978)1SCC118). In that case the Court observed as
under: (SCC p. 1-24, para 16)
"If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an
accused person to bail, the State has two options. G
It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new
circumstances have arisen which were not earlier
known to the State and necessarily,. therefore, to
• that court. The State may as well approach the
High Court being the superior court under
H
1198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A Section 439(2) to commit the accused to
custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved
by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail
and there are no new circumstances that have
cropped up except those already existing, it is futile
8 for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and
it is competent in law to move the High Court for
cancellation of the bail. This position follows from
the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-
a-vis the High Court."
c (emphasis supplied)
20. The judgment of this Court in State of UP. Vs.
Amarmani Tripathi reported in 2005 (8) SCC 21, was also
relied upon in support. In that matter the respondent and his wife
were admitted to bail by an order passed by the High Court
D on 29.4.2001 and 8.7.2004. Considering the totality of the
factors including that there was a clear possibility of the
respondents intimidating the witnesses, this Court cancelled the
bail by its order dated 26.9.2005 which was passed more than
a year after the grant of bail. What is relevant for our purpose
E is what this Court has observed in paragraph 18 to the
following effect:-
"18 .... .. While a vague allegation that the accused may
tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a
ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character
F
that his mere presence at large would intimidate the
witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use
his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence,
then bail will be refused ...... "

G (emphasis supplied)
21. Masroor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in 2009 (14) sec 286 was referred wherein this Court
has observed in paragraph 12 that this Court does not interfere
with the order of High Court granting or rejecting the bail but
H
'\ ~ ' .
, GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR v. STATE OF 1199
MAHARASHTRA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
. _where there was a manifest error in the matter of grant'of bail, A
it required interference. In paragraph 15 this Court observed
as follows:; - · · · '
.' . ·, -.+ l I

"15. There ts no denying the fact that the liberty of an
· ' Individual is precious and is to -be zealously protected by
"n ' · 'the courts. Nonetheless, such a pro'tection cannot be 8
· ' absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty
of an individual and the interest of the society in general
has to be balanced. Liberty of a person a. ccused of an
r'
offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case.
· It is possible that in a given situation, the 'collective C
interest of the community may outweigh the. right of
· r. personal liberty of the individual concerned .... "
' ' '

(emphasis supplied)
;

22. Paragraph 25 of Nim'inagadda Prasad Vs~ Central D
·aureau of Investigation reported in 2013 (7) ·sec 466 was
brought to our notice wherein with respect to the economic
offences the Court has observed as follows:-
. "25. Economic" offences constitute a ~la~s apa~ and
need to be visited with a different approach in the E
'' · · matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted
. conspiracies and itJvoiving:huge loss of public funds
needs to be viewed seriously 'and considered as a grave
offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole
'and thereby posing-serious threat to the /inancial health F
' ofihe country." c. __ '.' , . " '
- ,.·
(emphasis supplied) .
'
> ·t I ' ~

''
,

23. We have noted the submissions of ttie counsel for the
appellant~ as well as the respondents. In the present case we G
are concerned with the question as to whether High Court was
in error in cancelling the bail granted to the appellant. Having
noted the above aspects we are clearly of the view that the
Sessions Court had not complied with the mandatory proviso
to Section 439(1 ). This proviso lays down that before granting H
1200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is
punishable with imprisonment for life, and which is exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, it shall give a notice of the
application for bail to the public prosecutor. In the instant case,
the facts reveal that the appellant appeared before the learned
B Sessions Judge on 21.5.2012, when his application for bail was
taken up for consideration. The Sessions Judge passed an
order '1.0. to say'. The matter was taken up there and then. The
prosecutor applied for remand of at least 2 days which was
declined. The notice under the proviso under the Section 439
C (1) implies a proper and full opportunity to the prosecutor to
point out as to why bail should not be granted. The initial
chargesheet in the instant case was itself running into more than
268 pages. The Sessions Judge ought to have granted
adequate time to the prosecutor to reply on the basis of this
D chargesheet, for him to pass a considered order. Consequently
the order of bail does not reflect upon the contents of the charge
sheet.
24. As pointed out by Mr. Pawar, Deputy S.P. in his
affidavit that although the matter was heard there and then, the
E prosecutor did make a detailed argument pointing ought the
prima facie case against the appellant. The past conduct of the
appellant after the registration of the present crime was also
pointed out in detail as well as his criminal antecedents with ·
proof, and also the fact that the bail applications of 3 of the main
F accused (i.e. Sureshdada Jain and others) had been rejected
by another Sessions Judge by the order dated 17.5.2012 and
19.5.2012. That there was a wrongful loss of about Rs.169
crores to Jalgaon Municipal Council was also brought to the
notice of the Court. The counsel for the State of Maharashtra
G has therefore rightly submitted that the order passed by the Trial
Court was a perverse order since none of these factors were
considered by the Court.
25. The appellant and the accused have been charged for
an offence which may result into the punishment for
H imprisonment for life. It is a serious charge supported by a
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR v. STATE OF 1201
MAHARASHTRA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
detailed charge-sheet running into over 268 pages. It is stated A
therein that the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation had illegally
given more than 30 contracts to Jalgaon Construction Company
belonging to the appellant as a beneficiary in the conspiracy.
Obviously the prosecutor required time to interrogate the
· accused, and the custodial interrogation in such a situation, for B
at least two days, could not have been denied. It could have
aided the investigation by unearthing relevant information. The
bail order was however passed on the same day, there and
then. We are conscious of the fact that the liberty of a citizen
even if he is an accused is undoubtedly important, but at the c
same time when the prosecutor had pointed out to the Court
that the role of the appellant was no less than that of the three
others whose bail had been rejected, the learned Judge ought
to have considered these circumstances, justifying custodial
interrogation, with due diligence.
D
26. Thus it could certainly be said that the order passes
by the Sessions Judge was an order passed in breach of the
mandatory requirement of the proviso to Section 439(1) of
Cr.P.C. It is also an order ignoring the material on record, and
therefore without any justification and perverse. As held by this E
Court in Puran Vs. Rambi/as (supra), the High Court does have
the power under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. to set aside an
unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting bail. This is an
independent ground for cancellation as against the ground of
accused mis-conducting himself. F
27. In the instant case, the attempts made by the appellant
to pressurize the witnesses and even the investigating officer
are clearly placed on record through the affidavit of the Deputy
S.P. Mr. Pawar. On that ground also it could be said that the
appellant will be pressurizing the witnesses if he is n.ot G
restrained. This being the position, we cannot find any fault with
the order of the High Court cancelling the bail on that ground
also. The order does record the cogent and overwhelming
circumstances justifying cancellation of bail. The nature and
seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the- H
1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A society are always important considerations in such a case, and
they must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an
order on bail applications.
28. We must note one more objection raised on behalf of
the appellant, namely, that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had no locus
B to file an application seeking cancellation of bail. It is contended
that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had not even filed any application
before the Trial Court. They later on joined the respondent No.
2 to move the High Court by filing SLP (Crl.) Application to
quash and set aside the order granting bail. Mr. Marlapalle,
C learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal learned
counsel appearing for these respondents pointed out in reply
that the Criminal Application filed in the High Court was moved
under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Paragraph 2 of the said Criminal application stated as follows:·
D
"2. The applicants submit that they are residents of
Jalgaon. They are citizens of India. They are tax payers.
They are beneficiaries of various policies and amenities
provided by the Municipal Corporation to the citizens of
Jalgaon. The applicants are victims of the offence
E committed by the Respondent No. 2 alongwith other
accused. The applicants have locus standi to seek the
cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent No. 2
and the other accused persons."
F 29. It was submitted by these learned counsel that
respondent No. 2 had appeared before the Sessions Judge
to assist the prosecution, which is recorded in the order passed
granting bail. As far as filing of the aforesaid Criminal
Application before the High Court by respondent Nos. 2 to 4
G is concerned, the same has not been specifically objected to
in the High Court, and therefore, there was no occasion for the
High Court to look into any such objection. Now, this objection
is being raised in this Court. The learned counsel submitted that
the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had invoked the inherent jurisdiction
of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the power
H of the High Court to entertain such an application has been
GULABRAO BABU RAO DEOKAR- v. STATE- OF 1203
MAHARASHTRA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.)

upheld by this Court in paragraph 1-7. of Puran Vs ...Rambilas - A
(supra). In that.matter bail,had been granted by the Sessions.
Court, and the bail_ order was cancelled by the High -Court, not
on any petition by the State, but_on one fil~d by the complainant
invoking Sections 439 (2)_and 482 of Or.P.C. , "· . -i , ·-
1- 30. In our view the objectio'n raised by the'appella'nt cann'ot. B!
be- susta)ned in view of what is- observed by''thfs Court in'
paragraph 117 in Puran Vs: Rambilas '(supra) which reads
follows:-·· -- "-· ,_ - · _ ·· -·' .1" - ·
'as -
..' ''t,. . I
t . -~

17. Further, even if it is ar interlo_cutory order, the High c
Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 i~ not_
affected by the provisions of Section 397(3) of the _Code
of Criminal Procedure. That the 'High' Court m€3'y refuse
_·- to exercise its jurisdiction·. under SectioA'-482 on
the basis .1
•, 'of self-imposed restriction is a different aspect: It can
1 no(
. be denied that for securing the en'ds of justice, 'the· D
1
- High Court can interfere with the 'order'WhicH'cai.Jses''
- ~ · miscarriage of justice or is palpably illegal' or !is· 1
c. 'unjustified (Madhu Limaye v. State of Maha'fas.htra'
" (1977) 4 SCC 551 and Krishnan v. Krishnaven((199°?f
4 sec 241) - - :) · 1 r. . , .. J~ E
-(emphasis supplied) _,, , _- · .t~
, . . . ., " ~ . ... v ·· ..
For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in this ·
appeal and the same does not deserve to be entertained:
,.. ~ j I I

31.,Although this appeal is not being entertained, what we F _
find is that the appellant along with 4 other accused who have
been denied bail, had made numerous attempts to intimidate. •
the ,witnesses: and even threatened the investigating .officer.,.
Som'e .of the witnesses are the employees of the Jalgaon
MunicipalcCorporation, and obviously the appellant.and the 4· G,
accused, though in jail, may still make every effort to influence ·
them hereafter, and vitiate the trial if it is conducted in Jalgaori.-
Mr. Kharde, learned gounsel appearing for the,State has .
submitted that it will be in the fitness of things that the trial be
transferred outside the district. Mr. Savant, learned senior-_ H·
1204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 16 S.C.R.

A counsel appearing for the appellant has no objection for the
same. Mr. Marlapalle and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal appearing for the
respondents No.2 to 4 have also supported this submission.
We quite see the merit of this submission. A trial of this nature,
for that matter every trial, ought to be conducted in a free and
B fearless atmosphere. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case we are of the view that the trial of this Sessions
case ought to be transferred outside that district. The transfer
to the district Dhule, would be appropriate since that district is
adjoining to the Jalgaon district, and it also falls within the
c jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High
Court.
32. Before we conclude we make it.clear that the
observations made herein are for the purposes of deciding
whether the High Court was in any way in error in cancelling
D the bail granted to the appellant. This order is being passed
on the basis of the material that has been placed on record for
that purpose. Needless to state, but we make it clear that as
and when the trial is conducted, it will be decided on the basis
of the evidence, which will be brought on record during the
E course of the trial.
33. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will
surrender to the City Police Station Jalgaon, within two weeks
hereof. The Sessions case arising out of Crime/FIR No.13/
2006 registered at the City Police Station Jalgaon on 3.2.2006
F is hereby transferred to the Addi. Sessions Judge, Dhule,
incharge of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Jalgaon seized of this
matter will transfer the records of the concerned proceeding
within four weeks to the said Court. Registrar General of the
G Bombay High Court is directed to see to it that necessary
follow up steps are taken forthwith. Registry to send a copy of
this Judgment to the Registrar General High Court Bombay,
District Judge, Jalgaon and District Judge, Dhule.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal Dismissed
H