RUBINA ZAHIR ANSARI Vs. SHARIF ALTAF FURNITUREWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the applicant/original complainant, also heard learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1, also heard learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and also heard learned A.P.P. for the State-respondent Nos. 3 and 4. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the ACMM") dated 1st February, 2014. The said impugned order was passed on two separate bail applications bearing Nos. 12 and 13 of 2014 preferred by present respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) At the threshold, it must be mentioned that initially respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred bail application No. 2109 of 2013 before this Court for their release on bail. Said application was heard at length and by a reasoned order this Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 20th December, 2013. When that order was passed, subsequently an application for 'speaking to the minutes' was preferred before this Court asking for certain clarification regarding the observations made by this Court. Said application for speaking to the minutes was disposed of vide order dated 8th January, 2014. That time, it was submitted on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that certain observations were made in the order rejecting the bail application and as such trial Court/Sessions Court may not be influenced by the said observations when the matter will be put to trial or in repeated bail application. It is further submitted that an addition is required to be made in the final order mentioning that the said observations are only for the purpose of deciding bail application No. 2109 of 2013. This Court in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 concluded the said application for speaking to the minutes. The said observations in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 read thus:-

(3.) After getting the order of this Court on speaking to the minutes, on the above terms, the matter was taken before the learned Addl. Chief MM by filing bail application Nos. 12 and 13 of 2014, as mentioned above. Apparently, what was mainly canvassed before the learned Addl. Chief MM was that, this Court rejected the bail application only on the count that the investigation was continuing and as such after filing of the charge-sheet separate bail applications were preferred before the learned Addl. Chief MM. Said Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, allowed both the bail applications by giving reasoning only in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and then passed the final order granting bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with surety in the like amount. Contents of said three paragraphs were assailed on behalf of present applicant/original complainant and it is argued that the learned Addl. Chief MM had not taken into consideration the relevant material available against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in turn wrongly construed order of this Court as the order passed mainly sensing the investigation was going on. Also much is argued by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on the contents of said only three paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and which are only the paragraphs so far as reasoning is given by the learned Addl. Chief MM while granting bail. These paragraphs are produced hereunder, in order to have a ready reference and to appreciate the arguments of rival parties and in order to test whether the said order is of such a nature as required to be altered under the inherent powers of this Court as per section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Cr.P.C") and under section 439(2) of the Code regarding cancellation of bail. Said paragraphs read thus:-