Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Prernaa Virendrakumar Arora vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 2020
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.243 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1010 of 2020)
PRERNAA VIRENDRAKUMAR ARORA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
Issue notice returnable forthwith.
Learned counsel appearing for the original complainant on caveat accepts notice and waives service of notice and is agreeable to the matter being considered on the basis of the present paperbook and says that there is no necessity to file any affidavit in reply.
Since the matter has arisen from a Settlement entered into between the appellant and the complainant, notice to the State is also dispensed with.
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Bail Application No.1648 of 2019. In connection with FIR No.402 dated 30.08.2018 registered Signature Not Verified with Economic officers Wing, General Cheating, Unit No.3, Mumbai, Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2020.02.11 18:15:29 IST under Sections 420, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC, which FIR was Reason:
originally registered as CR No.73 of 2018 by P.S. MIDC, District 2 Mumbai, under Sections 420, 467, 120-B r.w 34 IPC, the appellant was arrested on 26.12.2018 and remained in custody till 16.09.2019. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the appellant and the complainant, the appellant was granted the facility of bail by the High Court. The order recited as under:-
“(i) The Applicant be released on cash bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of six weeks;
(ii) The Applicant shall within the said period of six weeks furnish P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with one or two local sureties in the like amount;
(iii) The Applicant shall report to the office of the EOW on the first Saturday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. until further orders;
(iv) The Applicant shall deposit her passport with the office of the EOW, if not deposited;
(v) The Applicant shall inform her latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;
(vi) The Applicant shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court and shall file an Affidavit stating therein that she has no other passport except the passports which are with the EOW;
(vii) The Applicant shall not leave Mumbai City without the permission of this Court till the entire payment is made to the Respondent No.3/Complainant;
(viii) The Applicant to co-operate in the conduct of the trial;
(ix) If there is a breach of the MOU entered into between the parties, the Respondent No.3/Complainant is at liberty to seek cancellation of the Applicant’s bail.
5. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.
6. It is made clear that the observations made herein 3 are prima facie, and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
7. Matter to be listed for compliance of the first payment on 03.10.2019 under the caption “For Directions”.
In terms of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the parties, certain obligations were undertaken by the appellant and in pursuance thereof, a sum of Rs.2.25 crores was made over by the appellant to the complainant. It however appears that the appellant could not discharge all the obligations undertaken in terms of the Settlement and, therefore, application for cancellation of bail in accordance with Clause (ix) of the directions of the High Court, was preferred by the complainant.
Accepting said application for cancellation, by order dated 28.01.2020, the High Court recalled the order dated 16.09.2019 and thus the facility of bail which was earlier granted to the appellant now stands withdrawn.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant could not discharge the financial obligations undertaken by her in terms of the Settlement but she had made over a sum of Rs.2.25 crores to the respondent/original complainant and had also suffered custody of almost nine months. In his submission, the appellant is entitled to have her case considered for bail on merits. 4 Mr. Rohatgi further submitted that a chance be given to the appellant to agitate the issue and pray for facility of bail on merits.
We accept the submission and direct as under:
a) The appellant shall surrender before the concerned ACMM, Esplanade Court, Mumbai within four weeks from today;
b) The appellant may file an appropriate application before the concerned Court seeking facility of bail.
c) Before the application for bail is taken up for consideration, the appellant shall surrender and the application shall be heard and considered only after the appellant is taken back in custody.
d) The bail application shall be considered by the concerned Court as expeditiously as possible.
With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of.
.................................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] .................................J. [VINEET SARAN] NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 07, 2020
5
ITEM NO.64 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1010/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-01-2020 in IA No.1/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) PRERNAA VIRENDRAKUMAR ARORA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; IA No.21894/2020 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT; and, IA No.21895/2020 – FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 07-02-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Saurabh Soni, Adv. (For R-2) Mr. Sanjit Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Ujjwal S. Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Nischal Kumar Neeraj, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed Order is placed on the File)