SUDHIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                    [2015] 12 S.C.R. 387


                              SUDHIR                             A
                                 v.
       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAANDANOTHER
            (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1286-1287of2015)
                                                                  8
                       0CTOBER 01, 2015
         [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
      Bail - Anticipatory bail - A/legations of criminal
misappropriation of public funds released for rural c
development against the appellants - Registration of FIR -
Application for anticipatory bail by the appellants- Grant of,
by the trial court - However, cancelled by the High Court -
Interference with - Held: Not called for - Considering the
gravity of the offence, circumstances of the case, particularly, . D
the allegations levied against the appellants and the conduct
of the appellants and the fact thatthe investigation is held up
as the custodial interrogation of the appellants could not be
done due to the anticipatory bail, the High Court rightly
cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by E
the Additional Sessions Judge.

      Shri Gurbaksh Signh Sibbia and others v. State
      of Punjab 1980 (3) SCR 383: (1980) 2 SCC 565;
      Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan 2009 (16)             F
      SCR 433: (2010) 1 SCC 684; State of A. P v.
      Bimal Krishna Kundu and another 1997 (4) Suppl.
      SCR 412: (1997) 8 SCC 104; Siddharam
      Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and
      others 2010 (15) SCR: (2011) 1 SCC 694;                     G
      Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and
      another 2015 (9) Scale 403- referred to.


                                                                  H
                              387
388         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A                          Case Law Reference

      1980 (3) SCR 383               referred to.       Para 7, 9

      2009 (16) SCR 433              referred to.       Para 7,8
B 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 412            referred to.       Para 10
                                         •
      2010 (15) SCR 201              referred to.       Para 11

      2015 (9) Scale 403             referred to.       Para 12
c         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
      Appeal Nos. 1286-1287 of 2015

       From the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2015 of the
  High Court of Ju9icature at Bombay, Bench atAurangabad in
D Criminal Applications No. 4527 and 4529 of 2013

                                  WITH

           Crl. A. Nos. 1288 and 1289 of 2015
E          Venkita Subramoniam T. R., Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,
      Vatsalya Vigya for the Appellant.

             Siddesh Kotwal, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
      for the Respondents.
F
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Leave granted.

        2. All these four appeals are directed against common
G order dated 29.1.2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature
  at Bombay, BenchAurangabad, in Criminal Application Nos.
  4526 of 2013, 4527 of 2013, 4528 of 2013 and 4529 of 2013
  whereby anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions
H Judge, Jalgaon, to the appellants in connection with C.R. Nos.
              SUDHIR-v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                         389
                    [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

 71 of 2013 and 73 of 2013, registered at Polica Station A
 Dharangaon, relating to offences punishable under Sections
 409, 420, 467, 468, 477A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
 Code (IPC) and under Section 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2)
 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is cancelled.
                                                                     s·
      3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
 perused the papers on .ecord.

         4. Brief facts of the case are that appellants Chandrkant
  Wagh and Sudhir Dahake are Executive Engineer and                  c.
  Sectional Engineer respectively in Rural Water Supply
  Department of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. Two First Information
· Reports were registered against them with the serious
  allegations of criminal misappropriation of funds released for
  implementation of schemes of drinking water in the villages of     D
  Waghlud and Sonwad Khurd in Tehsil Dharangaon. C.R. No.
  71 of2013 relates to Waghlud and C.R. No. 73 of2013 relates
  to village Sonwad Khurd. The FIRs in respect of these crimes
  appeared to have been registered only after enquiries were
  made under directions of Revenue Commissioner, by Deputy           E
  Commissioner (Development), Nasik Region, who found
  substance in the allegations against the c:ippellants. In C.R.
  No. 71 of 2013 there is allegation of misappropriation of
  Rs.28.35 lacs, and in C.R. No. 73 of2013 the allegations relate
  to misappropriation of Rs.13.75 lacs. In respect of village        F
  Waghlud one Mangal Ganpat Patil was shown as contractor,
  but no such contractor was found in existence. Vouchers
  shown regarding payment of Rs. 14.94 lacs were found false,
  which related to construction of overhead water tank in
  Waghlud village which was already in existence in said village     G
  under another scheme. The amount of first installment of
  Rs.1.43 lacs and second installment of Rs.1.44 lacs for
  construction of public toilet was found to have been made
  falsely, as no construction of public toilet was made in the       H
390          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


  A village. The amount was shown to have been made to one
    RohitdasAawasu Keli. Two measurement books were kept
    to submit exaggerated revised estimates. Rs.1.30 lacs was
    shown to have been spent on erection of barbed wire in village
    Waghlud, but no work of fencing was done in the village. In the
  B village Sonwad Khurd (C.R. No. 73 of 2013) work included
    relating to digging of bore well, fixing of pump and machinery,
    construction of pump house, and laying the pipeline. Barbed
    fence was also one of the works to be executed in village
    Sonwad Khu rd. Most of tbe payments in respect of these works
· C are shown to have been made in cash.

            5. The High Court has taken note of the fact that initially
      Mr. V.S. Dikshit, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon,
      declined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused-appellants,
 D    and appellant Chandrakant Wagh moved Criminal Application
      Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2013 in connection with above two
      FIRs before the High Court praying pre arrest bail. The
      applications were withdrawn and the High Court, after
      recording statement of the counsel, disposed of the two
 E    applications as withdrawn. Thereafter, appellant Chandrakant
      Wagh moved fresh anticipatory bail application Nos. 867 and
      868 of 2013 before Mr. D.P. Surana, learned Additional
      Sessions Judge, and succeeded in obtaining the order of
 F    anticipatory bail. The High Court took serious note of this fact
      in the impugned order passed on the applications moved by
      the complainant for cancellation of bail before it. Appellant
      Sudhir Dahake, Sectional Engineer, also appears to have
      obtained anticipatory bail from the Court of Additional Sessions
 G    Judge, Jalgaon. Allegations against him were specific as he
      was supervising the work under appellant Chandrakant, the
      Executive Engineer. Strangely, the State did not file any
      application for cancellation of bail, however, it supported such
      application for cancellation of bail moved by the complainant
 H    before the High Court.
                 SUDHIR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                  391
                      [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

      6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted before A
us that there is requirement of the custodial interrogation of
the appellants. It is further submitted that the investigation could
not progress as the appellants could not be interrogated.

     7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants B
argued before us that the High Court has erred in law in
cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants without
there being any sufficient reason. They referred to the cases
of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of
Punjab 1, and Ravindra Saxena v; State of Rajasthan 2 .            C
        8. In Ravindra Saxena (supra), the rejection of
application for anticipatory bail by the High Court was set aside
by this Court on the ground that the dispute between the
complainant and the accused was in substance, civil in nature, o
as it was a property dispute arising out of commercial
transaction, and the alleged offences were punishable under
Sections 448, 456, 457, 420, 467, 468, 471, 380, and 1208
IPC. In the present case before us,. there are serious
allegations of misapprop_riation of public funds, and corruption E
and the offences include one punishable under Section 409
IPC and also under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. As such, the case of Ravindra Saxena (supra) is
of little help in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
                                                                   F
        9. ln Gurbaksh Singh (supra), the Constitution Bench
of this Court, while laying down the guidelines relating to grant
of anticipatory bail, has observed in paragraph 14 as under: -

        "14. Generalisations on matters which rest on discretion G
        and the attempt to discover formulae of universal
        application when facts are bound to differ from case to

1
    (1980) 2 sec 565
2 (201 o) 1   sec 684                                             H
392              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A           case frustrate the very purpose of conferring discretion.
              No two cases are alike on facts and therefore, courts
                                    a
             have to be allowed little free play in the joints if the
             conferment of discretionary power is to be meaningful.
             There is no risk involved in entrusting a wide discretion
 B           to the Court of Session and the High Court in granting
             anticipatory bail because, firstly, thf'se are higher courts
             manned by experienced persons, secondly, their orders
             are not final but are open to appellate or revisional
             scrutiny and above all because, discretion has always to
 c           be exercised by courts judicially and not according to
             whim, caprice or fancy. On the other hand, there is a risk
             in foreclosing categories of cases in which anticipatory
             bail may be allowed because life throws up unforeseen
             possibilities and offers new challenges ....... "
 D
            The Constitution Bench in the above mentioned case,
    in paragraphs 16 and 17, while observing that the relief of
    anticipatory bail cannot be said to be barred merely for the
    reason that the allegations relate to economic offences or
  E corruption, has clarified that where the allegations are malafide,
    the prayer for anticipatory bail can be accepted. In the present
    case, at this stage, there appears to be no malice on the part
    of Revenue Commissioner, who ordered enquiry, or Deputy
. F Commissioner, who conducted enquiry, before getting lodged
    the First Information Reports against the appellants.
           10. In State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and
      anothef!, which relates to offences punishable under Sections
  420, 468 and 406 IPC arisen out of leakage of question paper
G in respect ·of examination conducted by Public Service
  Commission, this Court has made following observations: -
             "12. We are strongly of thf'l opinion that this is not a case
             for exercising the discretion under Section 438 in favour
 H    3 (1997)   a sec 104
              SUDHIR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                        393
                   [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

      of granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. It is A
      disquieting that implications of arming the respondents,
      when they are pitted against this sort of allegations
      involving well-orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest
      bail order, though subject to some conditions, have not
      been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. B
      We have absolutely no doubt that if the respondents are
      equipped with such an order before they are interrogated.
      by the police it would greatly harm the investigation and
      would impede the prospects of unearthing all the
      ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest C
      also would suffer as a consequence. Having apprised
      himself of the nature and seriousness of the criminal
      conspiracy and the adverse impact of it on "the career of
      millions of students", learned Single Judge should not
                                                                0
      have persuaded himself to exercise the discretion which
    · Parliament had very thoughtfully conferred on the
      Sessions Judges and the High Courts through Section
      438 of the Code, by favouring the respondents with such
      a pre-arrest bail order."                                 E

     11. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra and others", in sub-para (viii) of para 112, this.
Court has held as under: -
       "(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory F
bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely,
no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full
investigation and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;" .
     12. In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat G
and another6, laying down the principles regarding cancellation


'(2011) 1 sec 694
5 2015 (9) SCALE 403                                                 H
394           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015) 12 S.C.R.


A of anticipatory bail in sub paras (vi) and (ix) of para 23, this
  Court has observed as under: -

             "(vi) It is a settled legal position that the court which grants
             the bail also has the power to cancel it. The discretion of
B            grant or cancellation of bail can be exercised either at
             the instance of the accused, the Public Prosecutor or
             the complainant, on finding new material or
             circumstances at any point of time."

c                     xxx                     xxx                      xxx
            (ix) No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can
            be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail
            because all circumstances and situations of future cannot
            be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory
D
            bail. In consonance with legislative intention, the grant
            or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend
            on the facts and circumstances of each case."

         13. Having considered the submissions made by learned
E counsel for the parties, and after considering the gravity of the
  offence, circumstances of the case, particularly, the allegations
  of corruption and misappropriation of public funds released
  for rural development, and further considering the conduct of
F the appellants and the fact that the investigation is held up as
  the custodial interrogation of the appellants could not be done
  due to the anticipatory bail, we are of the opinion that the High
  Court has rightly cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the
  appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.
G Therefore, we are not inclined to disturb the same.

            14. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the order of
      cancellation of anticipatory bail, passed by the High Court. All
      the four appeals are dismissed.

H     Nidhi Jain                                          Appeals dismissed.