C R PATIL Vs. C E PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These bail applications, pending since June 2003, have a chequered history during their pendency and preceding that. Offences against several accused persons, including the petitioners, were first registered vide .F.I.E. dated 23.10.2002 with D.C.B. Police Station, Surat and the applications of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were rejected by the Sessions Court on 27.11.2002. Upon their filing similar applications in this Court, by order dated 7.2.2003, assurance and undertakings of the petitioners to repay the amounts due to the complainant bank, then running into Rs.55 crores, were recorded, and the applications were allowed without entering into the merits of the prima -facie case appearing against the petitioners. The petitioners having failed to abide by the undertakings, the subsequent bail applications of the petitioners were rejected as withdrawn.

(2.) As recorded in the order dated 19.12.2003, admittedly, not a single paisa of the complainant bank's dues was realized and it was absolutely clear and undisputed that the arrangement which was envisaged by the. order dated 25.7.2003 had not worked at all and, therefore, the cause for granting temporary bail to the petitioners was lost. The administrator of the bank who could not effect any recovery in five months was informed by a letter dated 18.12.2003 of the Registrar of Co. Op. Societies that the Government had decided to take the bank into liquidation. However, instead of arguing the petitions on merits, the learned counsel on both sides sought time to argue, but the petitioners were ordered to surrender to Jail by 20.12.2003 while the final hearing was fixed on 16.1.2004 as suggested by the learned counsel. Thereafter, again, rather than arguing the petitions on merits, a prayer for temporary bail was pressed mainly oh the basis of the minutes of the meeting held on 5.2.2004 under the auspices of the Chief Secretary of the State Government, according to which, the secured and unsecured advances of the bank were quantified "and broad terms and conditions of the sale of properties consisting of about 3800 units, known as C.R.PATIL NAGAR, were finalized. It was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Government was seriously addressed to the task of effecting recoveries for the complainant bank which was closed and, upon a clear consent expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the advocate appearing for the complainant bank, the petitioners were admitted to temporary bail, subject to conditions and clarifications, by the order dated 13.2.2004. The hearing of the applications was adjourned to 15.6.2004 as suggested by the learned counsel for allowing to the parties sufficient time for working of the arrangement that was arrived at under the auspices of the Government. The hearing was adjourned, by joint request of the parties, from time to timem thereafter till 13.8.2004 on which day the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant bank strongly objected to the grant of bail as also extension of the earlier order granting temporary bail. The applications were heard from time to time within the limited time available to the Court and, on 27.8.2004, the order not extending the temporary bail was made. Even thereafter, the hearing continued intermittently and the petitioners were treated as in judicial custody on condition of remaining personally present in the Court. On 24.9.2004, even after conclusion of the arguments, the last deal under the auspices of the government having admittedly failed, a fresh proposal for repayment to the bank was made on behalf of the petitioners and the hearing had to be adjourned for consideration of the proposal by the respondents. Ultimately, the order dated 29.9.2004 rejecting the applications of the petitioners was made for which detailed reasons are recorded herein.

(3.) Although the bail applications of the petitioners have been fully argued on merits for the first time, the bail applications of the other co-accused persons have been decided on merits by this Court by the detailed judgment in MOHAMMED ALI PIRBHAI DODHIA V/s. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2003 (3) GLR 2267. After dealing with similar arguments on behalf of the other accused persons, it has been concluded therein that a prima facie case of involvement of the petitioners of that case in the alleged offences, including the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, was made out and accordingly applications of most of the petitioners were rejected. That judgment was carried in appeal and the criminal appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 27.2.2004 of which the material part reads as under: