SATNAM SINGH SAHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application for Anticipatory Bail filed by the applicant was moved for urgent circulation and I had permitted the circulation on 5th June, 1999. Alongwith the application, the applicant has annexed various documents however the copy of the reasoned order was not made available in favour of the applicant rejecting the Anticipatory Bail of the applicant passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay and after hearing Mr. Vakil, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shinde, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the matter was adjourned to 16th June, 1999. On that day, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has submitted that the applicant is not co-operating with the investigation and, accordingly, as the reasoned order was not made available, and on considering the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Vakil, appearing on behalf of the applicant had submitted that it is not correct to say that the applicant is not co-operating and, according to him, the applicant had remained present before the Investigating Officer on various dates. However, while adjourning the matter, I had directed the applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer on 9th June, 1999 at 11.00 a.m. and further directed that the applicant to co-operate and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called by the Investigating Officer. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties on various dates even after 16th June, 1999 and, during the hearing, the reasoned order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, rejecting the Anticipatory Bail Application was also produced.

(2.) DURING the course of the hearing, an affidavit on behalf of respondent Shri Madhukar Krishnarao Chavan, Police Inspector dated 29th June, 1999 was filed opposing the prayer for Anticipatory Bail and even alongwith that affidavit, he has annexed certain documents. A further affidavit on behalf of the applicant dated 5th July, 1999 was filed and in the said affidavit the applicant has annexed the copy of the order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge dated 19th May, 1999 and the other three documents giving further detail about the case and, thereafter, a further affidavit on behalf of Investigating Agency viz. the affidavit of Shri Madhukar Krishnarao Chavan, Police Inspector has filed affidavit in respect of the investigation of the present case and request was made to reject the application of the applicant. Accordingly, I have heard at length and, with the help of the counsel appearing in the matter I was taken through the petition and the document attached thereto as well as the further affidavit filed by the applicant and the document attached thereto and the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent viz. affidavit of Shri Chavan dated 29th June, 1999 and further affidavit of Shri Chavan dated 9th July, 1999. During the hearing, Mr. Vakil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has cited various rulings of the Apex Court on the aspect governing the granting of Anticipatory Bail and even the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also cited certain decisions of this Court in respect of the decision governing the consideration of the cases deciding the Anticipatory Bail Application. I will deal with the cases later on.

(3.) THE applicant had filed application for Anticipatory Bail before the Court of learned Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai as the applicant was apprehending his arrest registered vide F.I.R. No.30/1999 before the GB CB CID, Mumbai upon the complaint filed by one Shri Suresh Kumar P. Agarwal of Ramesh Kumar And Company Ltd. The applicant is doing business as Exports and Imports. The copy of the F.I.R is also annexed to this application at Annexure "I" and the statement of complainant. I was also taken through the said F.I.R. filed by Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal. In the said complaint, the complainant has given details about his business of Import and Exports and the complainant is the Director in Ramesh Kumar And Company Limited and the said company is dealing in export of commodities to various countries since 25 years. It is also found that the company has been exporting rice to Bangladesh specially to the Ministry of Food, Government of Bangladesh for last 7 years. The company has also procured the order on 13th September, 1998 from the Ministry of Food against Contract No.IPR-14/01/98 for supply of 35000 Metric Tones of par boiled rice of Indian origin to Chittagong (Bangladesh) and against this order of 35000 Metric Tones the company shipped about 12000 Metric Tones on Vessel M.V. Hafina from Kandla which sailed on 11th February, 1999 for Chittagong. The complainant also narrate about the charter party, document was signed on 22nd January, 1999 on behalf of the owner of the ship M.V. Hafina their Agent Capt. Satnam Singh Sahi of M/s. Sitara Shipping Limited having office situated at Esplanade School Building, 3rd Floor, Mumbai. He has also given details about the said document. He has also given further detail in respect of the said document. Alongwith the complaint he has also produced the said document dated 22nd January, 1999. It is the case of the complainant that pursuance to the said contract the consignment of 12000 Metric Tones of rice was loaded on board of the M.V. Hafina for the purpose of carriage from Kandla directly to Chittagong and at that time the complainant had paid 30 % of the freight payable as per the agreement (Rs.28,41,000/-) and while giving detail Rs.20 lacs was paid to Capt. Satnam Singh Sahi and Rs.8,41,000/- was paid to M/s. Seamer Shipping Inc., Gandhidham, Kandla (Gujarat) for the vessel agent at Kandla Port and the balance of the price payable was to be paid only on arrival of the vessel at Chittagong. The complainant has also given further detail that the said vessel M.V. Hafina with the cargo on board, was sailed on or about 11th February, 1999. However, instead of proceeding directly to Chittagong, as per the said charter party made an unscheduled call at the port of Colombo (Sri Lanka) and, according to the complainant, the purpose was purportedly for replacement of bunker/ fuel to proceed further, which was in breach of the governing charter party agreement. In the said complaint, he has given further details that the said ship was arrested and further that as per the information received from the Government of Bangladesh the vessel had not arrived at Chittagong and on search of the Lloyd registry showed the ownership of the vessel different from what was represented by Capt. Satnam Singh Sahi and Capt Vivek Saihgal. Alongwith the complaint he has also produced the Court's Order dated 2nd March, 1999 and also Warrant of Arrest of the vessel Hafina dated 2nd March, 1999 and, it is the case of the complainant that the said vessel M.V. Hafina jumped arrest on 3rd/4th March, 1999 and nothing was heard about the said vessel. Accordingly, the complainant has filed complaint against the accused for criminal breach of trust, conspiracy in respect of 12000 Metric Tones of rice valued at Rs.12.85 crores. I am not referring in full detail recorded in the complaint of the complainant as the application for Anticipatory Bail moved by the applicant before the learned City Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge has in detail narrated the facts.