STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MADHUKAR WAMANRAO SMARTH

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 24-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 303 
-+ 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
A 
v. 
MADHUKAR WAMANRAO SMARTH 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 520-521 of 2008) 
MARCH 24, 2008 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.389 - Suspension 
of sentence pending appeal - Release of person convicted 
for offence of cheating, abetment of cheating, criminal breach 
of trust and criminal conspiracy on bail - Held: Not sustainable c 
- Reasons indicated by High Court for granting bail do not 
satisfy the parameters - Order of bail set aside - Matter 
remitted to High Court for reconsideration. 
The trial court convicted the respondents for D 
committing the offence of cheating, preparing forged and 
~ ~ 
false documents for cheating and using them as genuine, 
abetment of crime and committing criminal breach of trust 
by forming criminal conspiracy in furtherance of their 
common intention. The respondents filed appeals before E 
the High Court for grant of bail by suspension of sentence 
in terms of s.389 Cr. P.C. High Court granted bail to each 
of the respondents on the ground that bail was granted 
during trial and the liberty was not misused; that there 
was likelihood of delay in disposal of the appeals; and 
that in the case of respondent in Crl. Appeal 520-521/2008 
F 
.. J.., 
the evidence appeared to be scanty against him. Hence 
the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matters, the 
Court 
G 
HELD: The parameters to be applied while dealing 
with the application for suspension of sentence in cases 
.....;,. 
where life or death sentence is imposed, may not be 
applicable to other cases. But, the gravity of the offence, 
303 
H 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A the sentence imposed and several other similar factors 
+-
need to be considered by the Court. The fact that accused 
was on bail during trial is certainly not a relevant factor. 
This position has been fairly conceded by counsel for the 
respondents. The reasons indicated by the High Court 
B for granting bail do m>t satisfy the parameters. It needs to 
be pointed out that the trial court considering the gravity 
of the offence directed the sentences to run 
consecuth·ely. This aspect was not considered by the 
High Court. In the circumstances, the impugned order in 
c each case is indefensible and is directed to be set aside. 
But considering th1~ fact that the High Court had not 
applied correct principles it would be proper for the High 
Court to re-consider the matter and for that purpose the 
matter is remitted to the High Court. (Para 11) [312-D, E, F, G] 
D 
Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Ors. 2004 (7) SCC 639; Vasant 
Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (5) SCC 281 -
)< ~
relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
E Appeal Nos .. 520-521 of 2008. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.2007 and 
29.6.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur 
Bench, Nagpur in Crl. A. Nos. 1698 and 1775/2007 in Crl. A. 
No. 220/2007 respectively. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 522, 523, 524-527, 528 and 529 of 
2008. 
Shekhar Naphade, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the 
G Appellant. 
Ashok Srivastav, U.U. Lalit, Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. 
Desai, P.N. Gupta, Dr. R.S. Sundram, Gagan Sang hi, Mihir Y 
Kanade, Porus Kotwal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Amol N. 
H Suryawanshi, Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat and A. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MADHUKAR 
305 
WAMANRAO SMARTH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
' 
Dashratha for the Respondent. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. In each of these cases challenge is to the bail granted B 
to the respondent by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. 
Since all these appeals have a common matrix, they are taken 
up together. 
3. On the basis of allegations that the respondents were c 
guilty of having committed cheating, preparing forged and false 
documents for the purpose of cheating, using the said documents 
as genuine, abetment of crime, committing criminal breach of 
trust by forming criminal conspiracy in furtherance of their 
common intention, law was set into motion. 
D 
,~ 
4. They were convicted by the trial Court, and have 
preferred appeals before the High Court and had prayed for 
grant of bail by suspension of sentence in terms of Section 389 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). 
The High Court primarily granted bail to each of the respondents 
E 
on the ground that bail was granted during
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.