STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MADHUKAR WAMANRAO SMARTH

Leave granted.

p. 305, margin A

In each of these cases challenge to the respondent by the Bombay High Court, Since all these appeals have a common matrix, up together.

p. 305, margin A

On the basis of allegations that the guilty of having committed cheating, preparing documents for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine, abetment of crime, committing criminal trust by forming criminal conspiracy in common intention, law was set into motion.

p. 305, margin C

They were convicted by the trial Court, preferred appeals before the High Court grant of bail by suspension of sentence in of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 The High Court primarily granted bail to each on the ground that bail was granted during was not misused. Further ground indicated likelihood of delay in disposal of the appeals. respondent-Madhukar it was stated that the to be scanty against him .

p. 305, margin D

Questioning correctness of the order case, learned counsel for the State submitted large scale of manipulation of records resulting of results of the candidates and each of the definite role to play. Apart from the cases where convicted, large number of connected cases In the case of respondent-Yadav Nathoba Konchade, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were pending. In one case the said accused had offered bribe to the investigating officer and was caught red handed. It was submitted that considering the gravity of the offence the sentences were directed to run consecutively in terms of Section 31 (1) of Code. It was stated that the High Court was misled in the case of respondent-Madhukar who made a false statement before the High Court that he had deposited fine amount while in fact he had not done so as would be apparent from the s~cond order. It was essentially submitted that without indicating any plausible reason, much less, the reasons contemplated under Section 389 of the Code, the bail has been granted. The seriousness of the allegations for which the accused respondents have been already convicted has been completely lost siuht of.

pp. 305–306, margin F

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. It was submitted that some of them are very elderly persons and have retired from services. It is not a case where any irrelevant factor has been taken into consideration. It is pointed out on behalf of respondent-Madhukar that the only link the said accused is stated to have centres round two chits which were exhibited. They did not in any way establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime. That is why in his case the High Court observed that the evidence is scanty.

p. 306, margin D

In reply, learned counsel for the State submitted that in some cases, for example, accused Shamrao Kisanrao Kamlakar the ground for releasing him was the grant of bail to ' G co-accused. Further, the plea taken by Madhukar is not correct inasmuch as one of the co-accused has categorically stated that pressure was exerted by accused Madhukar for doing the illegal acts.

p. 306, margin F

The factual details involved are as follows: s. 'I ... ~ F

pp. 306–309, margin H

The parameters to be observed by the High Court while dealing with an application for suspension of sentence and grant G of bail have been highlighted by this Court in many cases. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Ors. (2004 (7) SCC 639) it was observed as follows: "Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of H execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distincti1:m between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine."

pp. 311–312

The above position was re-iterated in Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2005 (5) SCC 281).

p. 312, margin C

It is true that the parameters to be applied in cases where life or death sentence is imposed, may not be applicable to other cases. But, the gravity of the offence, 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 learned counsel for the respondents. The reasons indicated by the High Court for granting bail in our opinion do not satisfy the parameters. It needs to be pointed out that the trial Court considering the gravity of the offence has directed the sentences to run consecutively. This aspect has also not been considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, the impugned order in each case is indefensible and deserves to be set aside which we direct. But considering the fact that the High Court had not applied correct principles it would be proper for tne High Court to re-consider the matter and for that purpose the matter is remitted to the Hi!~h Court. Needless to say the High Court shall consider all the relevant aspects and pass ordets in accordance with law .

p. 312, margin C

The appeals are allowe·d. N.J. Appeals allowed.

p. 312, margin G