CENTRUM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 28-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 19
19
CENTRUM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2022)
JANUARY 28, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Bail –Non-consideration of relevant factors– Penal Code,
1860 – ss.409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B –Commercial
transaction – Respondent no.2-accused granted bail by High Court–
Correctness of – On appeal, held:While releasing Respondent no.2
on bail, the High Court has not at all considered the relevant factors
including the nature and gravity of accusation;serious allegations
of siphoning off the huge amount, the modus operandi and the
manner in which the offences were committed through shell
companies and creating false/forged documents and/or misusing
documents of the employees and showing them as Directors of the
fake and shell companies –High Court has also not taken into
consideration the status report filed by the I.O. detailing how
systematically the accused have committed the offence and
misappropriated the huge sum through shell companies – High Court
did not exercise the jurisdiction judiciously and granted the bail
mechanically by observing that the case arises out of a commercial
transaction – Impugned order set aside – Respondent no.2 to
surrender.
Bail – Cancellation of – Duty of appellate court – Plea of
accused that after being released on bail there are no allegations
of misusing the liberty and thus the bail may not be cancelled –
Held: There is no absolute proposition of law that once the bail is
granted by the High Court, in absence of any allegation of misuse
of liberty and/or breach of any of the conditions of the bail, the
bail cannot be set aside when grant of bail is itself subject matter of
challenge in appeal/revision – Rejection of bail in a non-bailable
case at an initial stage and cancellation of bail so granted has to
be dealt with and considered on different basis and that very cogent
and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail already granted – Thus, on
very cogent and overwhelming circumstances the bail can be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
cancelled –Where a Court while considering an application for bail
fails to consider the relevant factors, an Appellate Court may
justifiably set aside the order granting bail – Appellate Court is
thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers
from a non-application of mind or a prima facie view from the
evidence available on record.
Bail – Grant of – Relevant factors to be considered –
Discussed.
Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. (2020) 11 SCC 648;
Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1978)
1 SCC 118 : [1978] 2 SCR 358; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496 :
[2010] 12 SCR 1165; Neeru Yadav vs. State of UP &
Anr. (2016) 15 SCC 422 : [2015] 10 SCR 802; Anil
Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129 :
[2017] 11 SCR 195; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of
Delhi & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 280 : [2001] 2 SCR 684;
Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and Another
(2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019] 14 SCR 529 – relied on.
Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 :
[1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69; X vs. State of Telangana (2018)
16 SCC 511 : [2018] 4 SCR 466 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69
referred to
Para 4.2
[2018] 4 SCR 466
referred to
Para 4.2
(2020) 11 SCC 648
relied on
Para 4.2
[1978] 2 SCR 358
relied on
Para 4.2
[2010] 12 SCR 1165
relied on
Para 10
[2015] 10 SCR 802
relied on
Para 10.1
[2017] 11 SCR 195
relied on
Para 10.2
[2001] 2 SCR 684
relied on
Para 10.2
[2019] 14 SCR 529
relied on
Para 12.1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
94 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2020 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No.2442 of 2020.
Siddharth Dave, Ashutosh Kumar, Ms. Namita Choudhary, Ms.
Srishti Khurana, Ms. Kritika Khurana, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mukul Rohatgi, Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advs., Chirag M. Shroff, Roshan
Santhalia, Vikas Sethi, Ms. Puja Jakhar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Bail Application No.2442 of 2020 by which the High Court has
allowed the said application preferred by the Respondent No.2 herein
and has directed that he be relea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.