1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3271 OF 2009
(Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra .v. State of Maharashtra and another)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3272 OF 2009
(Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra .v. State of Maharashtra and another)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders
and Registrar's orders.
CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING : 08TH OCTOBER, 2009.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING : 09TH OCTOBER, 2009.
By Criminal Application No. 3271 of 2009, the
applicant prayed for grant of bail in Crime No. 495/2006
reported at Gadege Nagar Police Station, Amravati under
Sections 166, 167, 201, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A)
read with Sections 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code
further read with Section 7, 13(i)(d)(i),(ii),(iii) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
By Criminal Application No. 3272 of 2009, the
applicant prayed for grant of bail in Crime No. 262/2006
reported at City Kotwali Police Station, Amravati under
Sections 166, 167, 201, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A)
read with Sections 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code
further read with Section 7, 13(i)(d)(i),(ii),(iii) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
Heard Shri Majid Menon, the learned Counsel
for the applicant and Shri D.B. Patel, the learned APP for
respondent/State.
The learned Counsel for the applicant
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:12:36 :::
2
submitted that the charge sheets have already been filed
in Special Case Nos. 5/2009 and 6/2009 in respect of
accusations as mentioned. He further submitted that
the trial in both the special cases would require long
time. Therefore, the applicant be released on bail
subject to conditions that the applicant is ready and
willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed
by this Court. It is also contended that most of the
evidence in the special cases is of documentary nature
and the charge sheets have already been filed. The
applicant would be in a better position to defend the
cases if he is released on bail. On the other hand, if he
remains behind the bars during pendency of trial, it may
amount to pre trial punishment. Learned Counsel for
the applicant also contended that general rule is bail and
not jail and, therefore, the denial of bail by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati to the applicant is
unjust and improper by order dated 14.09.2009. He
made a reference to the rulings in the cases of Bhagirath
Singh .v. State of Gujarat (reported in (II) 1984(1)
Crimes, 334 (SC)) and Fida Hussain Bohra .v. State of
Maharashtra (reported in 2009 All MR (Cri) 1229 (SC)).
It is submitted that the charge sheets containing about
4500 pages have been submitted in the trial Court and
there is no likelihood to tamper with such voluminous
evidence. Therefore, the applicant be released on bail
with appropriate conditions. It is further submitted on
behalf of the applicant that all other co-accused have
been granted benefit of bail. Therefore, on the ground of
parity also the applicant be released on bail.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:12:36 :::
3
Shri D.B. Patel, the learned APP appearing on
behalf of the respondent/State vehemently opposed
grant of bail in favour of the applicant on the ground that
the accusations against the applicant are very serious
particularly under Sections 409 and 467 of the Indian
Penal Code, the offences are punishable to the extent of
imprisonment for life. If the applicant is released on
bail, he is an influential person and can influence
witnesses and frustrate the trial. Learned APP also
submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Amravati, rejected the pleas for bail advanced by this
applicant after considering the submissions along with
the rulings cited and also rejected the applications for
bail filed by the applicant. Regarding the merits of the
bail applications, learned APP contended that the
accusations against the present applicant are very
serious. The material collected during the investigation
also prima facie indicates the involvement of the present
applicant in both the cases reported in Amravati District
at City Kotwali and Gadge Nagar Police Stations,
Amravati. Crores of rupees belonging to the State
Government were misappropriated as reported by
Special Auditor in 2006 and the investigation revealed
the involvement of the present applicant as Chief
Operator of various bogus bank accounts acting along
with his brothers and relatives. Some of them are still
absconding. Various bogus companies were floated.
Accounts were opened in the firms’ name, such, as M/s.
Sapna Enterprises, M/s. Unique Traders etc. Statements
of various witnesses from the bank concerned also
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:12:36 :::
4
indicate the involvement of the applicant indicating as
to how the applicant and his brothers had opened and
operated various accounts in the bank in the name of
various companies and fictitious persons. The applicant
is facing accusation that he had on the basis of bogus
documents, submitted various bills purportedly from
various companies in respect of purchase of material
which in fact were not supplied but obtained bogus
sanction orders in order to recover the money from the
government and misappropriate it. Thus, according to
learned APP, crores of rupees were siphoned off by the
present applicant in connivance with others.
Regarding the contentions as to parity, the
learned APP submitted that the seriousness of the
accusations against the present applicant are such that
he is kingpin and Chief Operator as well as mastermind
behind the economic crime by which crores of rupees
belonging to State Government were siphoned off.
Therefore, he cannot claim parity in respect of bail
orders granted in favour of other co-accused in case,
particularly when some of his associates are still
absconding and further investigation as contemplated
under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
is still going on. In respect of enormous gravity of the
crime, the learned APP also submitted that it is
economic crime and deliberately executed with cool
calculations. Therefore, merely because the charge
sheets have been submitted in the trial Court is no
ground to grant benefit of bail in favour of the present
applicant. More particularly when the applicant was
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:12:36 :::
5
involved in similar crimes and appears to be habitual
offender. According to the learned APP, the applicant is
also facing identical accusations in Crime No. 98 of 2004
reported at Sarkarwada Police at Nasik, in Crime No.
198/2004 reported at Chandrapur Police Station,
Chandrapur and in Crime No. 122/2006 reported at
Murtizapur Police Station, District Akola, apart from his
prima facie involvement in the present economic
crimes.
It is no doubt true that ordinarily when charge
sheets have been filed in the cases, bail may be granted
on the basis of principle that it may amount to pre-trial
punishment if accused has to remain behind the bars
pending hearing and disposal of the trial. Normally,
therefore, as a general rule, benefit of bail is granted in
favour of the accused, but the Court cannot overlook or
disregard the nature of accusations against the accused
concerned. Some times bail is granted with stringent
conditions in order to meet the ends of justice after
investigation is complete and when the trial is pending.
In the present case, it appears from the submissions
advanced before me that further investigation as
contemplated under Section 173(8) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in respect of accusations against the
present applicant is still in progress. Some of the alleged
offenders are still absconding according to the learned
APP. Under these circumstances, considering the gravity
and serious nature of accusations against the applicant
as also number of past criminal cases pending against
him, I think the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:12:36 :::
6
Amravati was well within his discretion to deny benefit
of bail to the present applicant, considering huge
financial scandal of wrongfully gaining quick or easy
money worth crores of rupees from the government
exchequer.
In the ruling Fida Hussain Bohra .v. State of
Maharashtra (cited suppra), it does appear that in the
facts and circumstances of that case, the order by the
High Court cancelling anticipatory bail granted by the
learned Sessions Judge, was set aside by the Apex Court
directing that the accused may be interrogated by
investigating agency at any time suitable for the
investigating officer either alone or with other accused
persons as per direction from the learned Sessions Judge
concerned. To my mind, the ruling given in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of that case cannot come to the
rescue of the applicant in the present cases for claiming
benefit of bail. The Apex Court in the case of State of
Gujarat .v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and another
(reported in AIR 1987 SC 1321) has observed thus :-
“The entire community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders who ruin the economy ofthe State are not brought to book. A murder
may be committed in the heat of moment
upon passions being aroused. An economic
offence is committed with cool calculations
and deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the
consequences to the community. A disregard::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:12:36 :::
7for the interest of the community can be
manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the
trust and faith of the community in thesystem to administer justice in an even
handed manner without fear of criticism
from the quarters which view white collar
crimes with a permissive eye unmindful ofthe damage done to the National economy
and National interest.”
The above observations would indicate as to
how economic offenders are treated as more dangerous
than even murderers in the society. The gullible poorpublic always suffer when economic offences involving
huge finances are committed against the State and the
Society at large. The potential of injury is to those poorcitizens who visit and suffer the most by going to public
hospitals owned by government with minimum
expectations to receive medical treatment with
reasonable facilities as should be available in publichospitals. If any person has indulged into deliberate
swindling of crores of public money to make quick and
easy money with eye on personal profit, without in factsupplying the necessities to the hospitals and there
appears prima facie grounds to believe into the
accusations levelled against him, such person cannot be
enlarged on bail to be let loose on the society particularly
when past criminal cases were reported against him and
are still pending.
Considering the prima facie serious nature of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:12:36 :::
8
accusations as also the incriminating nature of material
collected during the investigation, prima facie one may
believe the involvement of the applicant/accused in
serious economic offences amounting to
misappropriation of crores of rupees from the
government money as also criminal breach of trust
attracting penal provisions under Sections 409 and 467
of the Indian Penal Code. The legislature do prescribe
heavy punishment to the extent of life imprisonment for
the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 467 of
the Indian Penal Code, therefore, I think unless main
witnesses on behalf of the prosecution are examined in
the trial Court in respect of both these cases benefit of
bail cannot be extended to the present applicant
irrespective of the ground of parity along with other co-
accused who may be mostly corrupt or negligent
government officials indicted in the case. If the
applicant is released on bail at this stage, he may
abscond and it would be difficult to secure his presence
at the time of trials in both the cases. Furthermore it is
likely that he may use his influence to tamper with the
evidence of witnesses in view of probability of long
sentences of imprisonment, in such cases economic
offences are required to be proved in the larger interest
of public, society and the State because real culprits shall
be brought to justice.
Bearing in mind these reasons and totality of
circumstances, I think there is no need to give overmuch
importance to personal freedom which is myopic when
compared with larger interest of public, society and the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:12:36 :::
9
State. In view of the well reasoned order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, I do not
propose to take any different view in the matter. Of
course, when main witnesses are examined in the trial
Court, the applicant shall be at liberty to move bail
application afresh before the trial Court. The trial Court
is expected to hear the trials giving top priority and to
complete the hearings and decide the cases on merits as
early as possible without being influenced by above
observations limited for the purpose of deciding the bail
applications.
ig For all these reasons, the applications are
rejected.
JUDGE
*rrg.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:12:36 :::