REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1
2 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1376 OF 2012
3 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7337 of 2011
Maruti Nivrutti Navale .... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the final order dated 19.09.2011
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application
No. 786 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the application for
anticipatory bail filed by the appellant herein.
3) Brief facts:
(a) The appellant is the Founder President and Managing Trustee of
Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune (in short ‘the Society’). The
Society is engaged in imparting formal and informal education by
establishing various schools, colleges and institutions in the State of
Maharashtra. Respondent No.1 is the State and Chainsukh Sobhachand Gandhi-
Respondent No.2 herein is the original Complainant and is a Trustee of
Pawan Gandhi Charity Trust (in short ‘the Trust’) working for the
upliftment of economically and socially impoverished sections of the
society.
(b) Respondent No. 2 was running a school on land bearing Survey
No.154/6/1 admeasuring 57 acres situated at Ambavet, Tal. Mulshi, Dist.
Pune, on which a building in the area of 650 sq. mts. was constructed. In
the year 2008, it was decided to run the School with the help of other
educational institutions by leasing out the property. Respondent No. 2
approached the appellant herein for the same. The appellant herein has
also shown interest in acquiring lease hold rights in order to run school
activities in the said property. Pursuant to the same, negotiations took
place and it was offered to lease out the said school building for a period
of 87 years and to sell the other property, viz., land bearing Survey No.
165/1 admeasuring 8500 sq. mts., Survey No. 162 admeasuring 7600 sq. mts.,
Survey No. 160/1 admeasuring 1900 sq. mts. and Survey No. 161 admeasuring
21300 sq. mts. situated at Ambavet, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune for a
consideration of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-.
(c) Accordingly, two separate Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) were
executed on 10.05.2008. Both the memorandums were duly notarized and
registered. On 13.05.2008, in order to realize the object, the Trust
leased out the said property to the Society for a period of 2 years and 11
months commencing from 15.04.2008 and expiring on 09.03.2011 by way of an
interim arrangement for an amount of Rs. 1/- towards lease fee for the
entire duration of the lease granted. This deed was duly registered with
the office of sub-Registrar, Mulshi (Paud) at S.No. 3701/2008.
(d) On 19.02.2011, the appellant-Society received a legal notice to
remove the dead stock and articles kept in the school within 4 days and
further to vacate the school and to handover the possession in favour of
the Trust alleging breach of the clauses mentioned in lease deed dated
13.05.2008. By reply dated 07.03.2011, the appellant-Society denied the
said allegations.
(e) The Trust filed an application under Section 41E of the Bombay Public
Trust Act, 1950 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune seeking
prohibitory orders against the appellant-Society.
(f) Aggrieved by the inaction of the Trust, the appellant-Society also
filed two separate suits bearing Special Civil Suit bearing Nos. 1146 and
1147 of 2011 before the Civil Court, Pune.
(g) On 20.07.2011, respondent No.2 filed a complaint with the Deccan
Police Station, Pune under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was registered as S.No. 168 of
2011.
(h) Against the said complaint, the appellant filed an application
bearing No. 2651 of 2011 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Pune for grant of anticipatory bail. By order dated 29.08.2011, the
Sessions Judge dismissed the said application.
(i) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Criminal
Application No. 786 of 2011 before the High Court. By impugned order dated
19.09.2011, the High Court dismissed the said application. Against the
said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave
petition.
4) Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Chinmoy Khaldkar, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1-State and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-
Complainant.
5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the
appellant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the Code’).
6) Inasmuch as the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in the order dated
29.08.2011 and the High Court in the impugned order dated 19.09.2011
adverted to all the factual details relating to the appellant-accused and
the Respondent No. 1-State and Respondent No. 2-Complainant, there is no
need to traverse the same once again except certain aspects which are
essential for the disposal of the present appeal. According to the
Complainant/respondent No.2 herein – Pawan Gandhi Charity Trust had been
established in the memory of his son and the Trust had a land on which a
building was constructed for running a school. The appellant claims to be
the founder President and Managing Trustee of the said Society and the
Trust had a land bearing Survey No. 154/6/1 admeasuring 57 acres on which
building in the area of 650 sq. mts. was constructed. An English Medium
School was started in the building in 2005 known as Loyala School. In
March, 2008, it was offered to lease out the said school building for a
period of 87 years and also to sell other property of the Trust to the
Society. Based on the negotiations, two separate Memorandum of
Understandings (MoUs) dated 10.05.2008 were signed between the parties.
7) It is the claim of the Complainant-respondent No.2 herein that on
13.05.2008, a lease deed for a period of 35 months w.e.f. 15.04.2008 was
executed and registered between the parties and it was agreed not to act
upon the two MoUs. On the expiry of the lease period i.e. on 09.03.2011,
the Society was to handover the possession of the said building and the
land to the Trust.
8) It is the stand of the first respondent-State and the second
respondent-Complainant that the present appellant made a forgery in further
lease deed dated 07.03.2011 pertaining to the granting of lease for 87
years without the consent of the Complainant. It is also stated that on
the same date, the appellant also made a forgery by making
additions/alterations in the original draft agreement for lease which was
prepared at the time of executing the MoU and got it franked. It is also
their grievance that the document was notarized in the year 2008 and even
in the said notarized document, forgery was committed by the appellant. It
is the contention of the Complainant that on the basis of the forged
document, the appellant asserted his claim over the property.
9) During the course of hearing, Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for
the appellant by taking us through the MoUs and lease deed and also the
corrections in those documents submitted that those corrections have been
made with the consent of the Complainant and according to him, no forgery
has been committed as claimed by the respondents. He pointed out that
inasmuch as the sale deed could not take place and the property of the
Trust could be leased out for a period of more than 3 years without the
permission of the Charity Commissioner, the lease deed for a period of 35
months was executed and registered as stop-gap arrangement with an
understanding that the Trust would approach the concerned Assistant Charity
Commissioner for necessary permission and, thereafter, the lease deed for a
period of 87 years in respect of the school building and the sale deed
about the larger property could be executed and registered.
10) In the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the State
vehemently opposed the claim of anticipatory bail and contended that
custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary because he has forged
several documents and also submitted false information to the Education
Department while obtaining permission for running the school. It is
further pointed out that he has also produced copies of false document. It
is his claim that unless custodial interrogation of the appellant is
granted, it would not be possible to seize all those documents from him.
In other words, according to the State, the appellant has committed not
only the offence of forgery in respect of private documents but also made
false representations and committed offence of cheating by giving false
information to the Education Department, thus committed an offence not only
against the State but also against the public in general.
11) Like the counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Prashant Bhushan,
learned counsel for the second respondent-Complainant by drawing our
attention to various materials including corrections in the documents and
several communications with the Educational Authorities as well as the
letter dated 04.07.2012 of the Deputy Collector, Maval Sub-division, Pune
addressed to Senior Police Inspector, Bundgarden Police Station, Pune
submitted that in view of the conduct and involvement in various heinous
offences, the appellant is not entitled indulgence by this Court for any
relief.
12) As observed above, all the three counsel appearing for the parties
took us through MoUs, lease deed and other correspondence/communications
with the Educational Authorities as well as the report of the Deputy
Collector, Pune, to Senior Police Inspector, Bundgarden Police Station,
Pune. It is also relevant to point out that all these materials were
scrutinized/analyzed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune and the High
Court while considering the application for anticipatory bail. It is true
that the parties have also approached the Civil Court for various reliefs.
At the same time, as pointed out by counsel for the State and the second
respondent-Complainant, considering the seriousness relating to
corrections/additions/alterations made in various documents, information
furnished to the Educational Authorities which, according to them, are
incorrect, we are of the view that in order to bring out all the material
information and documents, custodial interrogation is required, more
particularly, to ascertain in respect of the documents which were alleged
to have been forged and fabricated. In the said documents and other
materials which are in the possession of the appellant and the allegation
against him that he has made false representation before the Public
Authority on the basis of those documents for obtaining necessary
permission, as pointed out by the State, in order to secure possession of
those documents, custodial interrogation is necessary. For this reason,
the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court rejected the claim for
anticipatory bail.
13) In addition to the same, it is stated by the respondents that after
the order of this Court dated 23.09.2011 granting interim protection, the
appellant has misused his liberty in creating hindrance to the
investigation and continues to scuttle it and also intimidating and
pressurizing the Complainant as well as the prosecution witnesses.
14) In the light of the above discussion and in view of the mandate
prescribed in Section 438 of the Code, we fully agree with the conclusion
arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court in rejecting
the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the appeal fails and the
same is dismissed.
15) In view of our order dismissing the appeal, the interim protection
granted by this Court on 23.09.2011 shall stand vacated and the appellant
is granted two weeks time from today to surrender and seek regular bail.
It is also made clear that the conclusion arrived at by the courts below
including the present order relates only to eligibility or otherwise of the
relief of anticipatory bail and the trial Court is free to decide the bail
application de hors to the above observation and in accordance with law.
...…………….…………………………J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
..…....…………………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012.
| | | |
-----------------------
12
