M/S. SUPREME BHIWANDI WADA MANOR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 26-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · 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
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
M/S. SUPREME BHIWANDI WADA
MANOR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2021)
JULY 26, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.438 – Anticipatory bail
– Appellant-complainant was awarded contract for constructing road
– Four accused were engaged by appellant company as its employees
and were assigned responsibility of identifying farmers on the basis
of list provided by the governmental authorities and to disburse
compensation to them after verifying authenticity of the claim –
Appellant filed complaint against the four accused alleging that the
accused were involved in fraud of around Rs.5.08 crores by
fabricating documents pertaining to the occupants of lands and
making nominal payments to villagers – Trial court ordered
investigation under s.156(3) of the Code – FIR was registered – All
four accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by High Court
– Appeal by complainant – Held: Magistrate’s order under s.156(3)
was not under challenge before the High Court and had attained
finality – High Court was in error in raising a doubt about the
correctness of the order under s.156(3) passed by the Magistrate in
the course of considering the complaint – Secondly, the position in
law as set out in the order of High Court did not accord with the
principles consistently enunciated in the context of Chapter XV of
the CrPC – High Court, in granting anticipatory bail lost sight of
the nature and gravity of the alleged offence – There were serious
allegations against the accused persons of a fraudulent
misappropriation of amounts intended to be paid to the farmers
affected by the work of road widening being undertaken by the
complainant – The FIR sets out details of the alleged acts of fraud
and misappropriation of funds – Having regard to the seriousness
of the allegations, no case for anticipatory bail was made out.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 226
226
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
227
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The High Court, in granting anticipatory bail under
Section 438 in the first two appeals and following that order in
disposing of the challenge to the order of the Sessions Judge in
the companion appeals, has evidently lost sight of the nature and
gravity of the alleged offence.There are serious allegations against
the respondent – accused of a fraudulent misappropriation of
amounts intended to be paid by the company to the farmers
affected by the work of road widening being undertaken by the
complainant. The FIR sets out details of the alleged acts of fraud
and misappropriation of funds. Having regard to the seriousness
of the allegations no case for anticipatory bail was made out. The
High Court has erred both in law and in its evaluation of the facts.
[Paras 22, 23][238-E-F; 239-D-F]
Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P. (2001) 2 SCC
628:[2001] 1 SCR 257; Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi
(2007) 12 SCC 641; Tilak Nagar Industries Limited v.
State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 15 SCC 571; Anju
Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 6 SCC
384:[2012] 13 SCR 901; Sushila Aggarwal v. State NCT
of 15 Delhi (2020) 5 SCC 1:[2020] 2 SCR 1; Myakala
Dharmarajam v. The State of Telangana (2020) 2 SCC
743 – referred to
Case Law Reference
[2001] 1 SCR 257
referred to
Para 18
(2007) 12 SCC 641
referred to
Para 19
(2011) 15 SCC 571
referred to
Para 19
[2012] 13 SCR 901
referred to
Para 20
[2020] 2 SCR 1
referred to
Para 22
(2020) 2 SCC 743
referred to
Para 22
M/S. SUPREME BHIWANDI WADA MANOR INFRA. PVT LTD v. THE
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
680 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2017 of the High Court
of Bombay at Bombay in Anticipatory Bail Application No.85 of 2017.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 681, 682 And 683 of 2021
Dinesh Tiwari, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Ansh Karnawat, Advs. for
the appellant.
Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A Pande, Geo Joseph, Jitendra
Kumar, Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Ms. Prachiti Deshpande, Ms. Priyanka
Deshpande, Nitil Lonkar, Ms. Sonali Suryawanshi, Shankey Agrawal,
Advs. for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. This batch of four appeals involves similar issues and were
heard together. The first two appeals arise out of an order dated 18
December 2017 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.