Divyesh C Sejpal vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Facts

The applicant, the first informant, sought cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No. 2 (accused) in CR No. 561 of 2022. The FIR alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, related to fraudulent property transactions. The accused allegedly induced the informant to part with Rs. 5 crores for Flat No. 2103 and Rs. 1,09,00,000/- for Flat No. 2102, failing to deliver possession and allegedly fabricating documents. The bail order dated January 16, 2024, noted the accused's undertaking to hand over possession of Flat No. 2103, subject to the informant depositing GST and other dues. The applicant argued the accused obtained bail by suppression of facts and non-compliance with undertakings, including the disclosure of a subsequent FIR (No. 367 of 2023) at Dadar Police Station.

Held

The Court held that the application for cancellation of bail did not merit countenance. Regarding the contention that bail was obtained by suppressing FIR No. 367 of 2023, the Court found this argument could not be urged as a supervening event justifying cancellation, as it essentially touched upon the merits of the original bail order. The proper remedy for such a grievance would be to approach a superior court. The Court also noted that the accused had been in custody for approximately 14 months for offences exclusively triable by a Magistrate, and bail was granted after investigation and charge-sheet filing. The question of non-compliance with undertakings was deemed a factual and contentious issue. The Court was unable to be persuaded that the bail order was obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts to the extent that it warranted cancellation. The Court reiterated that it had made it clear in the bail order that no conditions were imposed for release.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bail granted to Respondent No. 2 should be cancelled on the ground that it was obtained by suppression of material facts, specifically the existence of FIR No. 367 of 2023 registered at Dadar Police Station, thereby constituting a fraud on the court? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contended that the accused obtained bail by suppressing material information regarding FIR No. 367 of 2023, which indicated a deeper conspiracy. This non-disclosure amounted to a fraud on the court, disentitling the accused to any relief, citing Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash Alias Pappu And Anr and Union of India & Ors Vs Ramesh Gandhi. The applicant also argued that the accused failed to comply with the undertakings made in the bail order, which were relied upon by the court. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents resisted the application. The State argued that the cancellation of bail requires very strong, cogent, and overwhelming circumstances, such as breach of conditions or abuse of liberty, citing Dolat Ram Vs State of Haryana. The court noted that the bail order explicitly clarified it did not impose conditions for release.