GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 1181 · Decided: 17-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 16 S.C.R. 1181 
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2113 of 2013) 
DECEMBER 17, 2013 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Bail - Cancellation of - Propriety - Economic offences 
A 
8 
- 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

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