FIDA HUSSAIN BOHRA versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 998 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 998 
A 
FIDA HUSSAIN BOHRA 
-\ 
II. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH 3, 2009 
[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 
E about Rs. 26 crores. Appellant applied for and was 
,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 c 
-
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 
cooperating with the investigating agency. The 
•· 
investigating agency accepted that the conditions for 
I 
grant of anticipatory bail may be relaxed. If the D 
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 1 O] [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 
G 
bogus bills without any supply of medicine or other 
• 
; 
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, 
B Interest of justice would be sub-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 either 
l 
alone or with other accused persons, shall be allowed. 
c 
Appellant shall comply with such other direction or 
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 
E Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Criminal Application 
No.1117 of 2008. 
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Arundhanti S. Sukhtankar and 
Naresh Kumar for the Appellants

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.