Bombay High Court
Shyamjibhai Govindbhai Patel @ Satuba ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 October, 2018
Author: A.M.Badar
Bench: A.M.Badar
(907)APPANo.14922018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1492 OF 2018
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1326 OF 2015
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.871 OF 2014
Shyamjibhai Govindbhai Patel
@ Satuba J. Zala ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
.....
Mr.S.V.Marwadi , Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.P.H.Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the Respondent No.1/State.
Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2/CBI.
....
CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.
DATED : 4th OCTOBER 2018.
P.C. :
1 This is an application for modification/relaxation of
condition of the bail Order dated 10th December 2015 passed by
this Court in Criminal Application No.1326 of 2015. Vide said
Order, the applicant/appellant was directed to be released on bail
on executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and on
Gaikwad RD 1/6
(907)APPANo.14922018
furnishing one surety in the like amount. However, this Court had
directed that suspension of the sentence shall be on the
applicant/appellant depositing the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the
trial Court and furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of
Rs.15,00,000/-. It was further directed that the bail Order shall
take effect only after the applicant/appellant depositing a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- in the trial Court and furnishing the bank guarantee
in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.
2 Heard Shri.Marwadi, the learned Counsel appearing
for the applicant/appellant. He argued that the applicant/
appellant is 71 years old person having no financial resources. He
further argued that in fact, son of the applicant/appellant namely
Vinod Shamji Patel appeared before the Court on 28 th April 2016
and expressed his as well as his brother's inability to arrange for
even a small sum. This development is incorporated in the Order
dated 28th April 2016 passed by this Court. With the aid of this
Order, Shri.Marwadi, the learned Counsel appearing for the
applicant/appellant submits that as of now, the
applicant/appellant has undergone substantive sentence of four
years and nine months. He has earned remission of 336 days.
Thus, in submission of the learned Counsel for the
applicant/appellant, the applicant/appellant has undergone the
substantive sentence imposed upon him so also default sentence of
one year. Therefore, looking to the age of the applicant/appellant,
Gaikwad RD 2/6
(907)APPANo.14922018
he needs to be released on bail. It is further argued that except
this old person, all other accused persons are already released on
bail by this Court and they are enjoying their liberty.
3 Shri.Venegaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for
the respondent/CBI has vehemently opposed the application by
contending that the offence alleged and proved against the
applicant/appellant was a financial offence and therefore stringent
conditions imposed on the applicant/appellant by this Court on
bail application need not be relaxed.
4 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and
also perused the material placed on record.
5 The applicant/appellant is convicted of offences
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code by the impugned Judgment and Order of
conviction and resultant sentence. For the offence punishable
under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant/
appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three
years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- and default
sentence of one year. For the offence punishable under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for five years apart from imposition of fine of
Rs.40,00,000/- and default sentence of one year. For the offence
Gaikwad RD 3/6
(907)APPANo.14922018
punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, the applicant/appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for five years on each count apart from imposition
of fine of Rs.10,000/- and default sentence of one year on each
count.
6 By now it is settled that sentence in default of payment
of fine cannot be an excessive sentence. Valuable reference can be
had to this proposition from Judgment of the Honourable Apex
Court in the matter of Palaniappa Gounder v. State of T.N.1. It is
held by the Honourble Apex Court that grave penalty for default in
payment of fine is hardly calculated to serve any social purpose.
Even otherwise, the State is free to recover the fine amount
imposed on the applicant/accused by resorting to relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7 Applicant/appellant is a old person aged about 71
years. The co-accused are already released on bail. In fact, this
Court had directed his release on bail vide Order dated 10 th
September 2015. However, still he could not secure his liberty as
the applicant/appellant is suffering from penury and could not
deposit the amount of Rs.5.00,000/-and bank guarantee of
Rs.15,00,000/-. The Order dated 28 th April 2016 shows that even
his son, who was summoned by this Court has straightway refused
to arrange even a small money. Resultantly, though the
1 (1977) 2 SCC 634
Gaikwad RD 4/6
(907)APPANo.14922018
applicant/accused is released on bail by this Court, he is unable to
secure his liberty. As of now, the applicant/appellant has
undergone four years and nine months sentence apart from
remission earned by him.
8 The co-accused are also released on bail and even if
the appeal of the applicant/appellant is taken up for final hearing,
the question will be that of readiness of the co-accused to work out
their appeals.
9 In this view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that by keeping the liberty of the State to recover the fine
amount open, the applicant/appellant deserves relaxation of
condition of bail for securing his liberty. As such, the Order :
ORDER
(i) The condition of depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the trial Court as well as that of furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, as reflected in the Order dated 10th December 2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.1326 of 2015, stands relaxed.
(ii) Similarly, in the mean while on depositing cash security of Rs.50,000/-, initially for a period of four weeks, the applicant/appellant be released on bail in order to arrange for surety.
Gaikwad RD 5/6(907)APPANo.14922018
(iii) Out of the amount of cash security, that may be deposited by the applicant for getting himself released on bail, on furnishing surety, if any, by the applicant accused, amount of Rs.40,000/- be retained by the Court itself and it be appropriated towards the fine amount.
(iv) The application is disposed of accordingly.
(v) Parties to act on authenticated copy of this Order (A.M.BADAR J.) Raju Dattatraya Gaikwad Digitally signed by Raju Dattatraya Gaikwad Date: 2018.10.06 16:57:07 +0530 Gaikwad RD 6/6