Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mahendra vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 March, 2014
)ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).239-240/2014 (From the judgement and order dated 21/01/2013 in CRLA No.491/2011,CRLA No.4223/2012 dated 10/09/2013 in CRLA No.491/2011,CRLA No.1929/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD) MAHENDRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for stay,exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order,exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 28/03/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal A. Cheema, Adv. Mr. Ajit Wagh, Adv. Mr. Amol Karande, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Shankar Chillarge, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv. Mr. A.G. Nair, Adv. Mr. R.R. Deshpande, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the Signed Order.
[RAJNI MUKHI] [USHA SHARMA] SR. P.A. COURT MASTER (Signed Order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.727-728 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 239-240 of 2014) DR. MAHENDRA S/O NARAYAN KABRE APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENTS O R D E R Leave granted.
These appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the orders dated 21st January, 2013 and 10th September, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. By the impugned order, the High Court refused to refund the amount of Rs.24,66,000/deposited by the appellant for release of his father on bail. The rejection was made on the ground that the appellant gave undertaking to deposit the amount for release of his father on bail and the word undertaking’ has to be equated with a guarantee or promise made by the appellant to a Court to act in certain manner. The breach of such undertaking may entail to an action for contempt and if related to property, then execution as against the property.
- 2 The father of appellant late Dr. Narayan Motilal Kabre was an accused in FIR being C.R. No. 90/2010 registered on 25.08.2010, Police Station Erandol, Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 477 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the sons of Dr. Narayan Motilal Kabre namely, Vinay Narayan Kabre was also an accused in the said case. On the ground that Narayan Motilal Kabre was suffering from illness the appellant (son) has preferred a criminal application for release of Narayan Motilal Kabre on bail for his treatment.
7th The learned Single Judge by its order dated February, 2011, having analyzed the documents on evidence, observed that Narayan Motilal Kabre who was about 80 years of age facilitated by atrocious activities in the capacity as Chairman, disbursal of loan amount of Rs.24,66,000/-to two persons, and, therefore allowed the prayer for grant of bail subject to deposition of sum of Rs. 24,66,000/-, for which fraud was alleged to have been committed by Narayan Motilal Kabre. Subsequently, said Narayan Motilal Kabre died on 21.3.2012 while on bail. It was in this background, appellant filed application for refund of the amount deposited by him as security amount for release of Narayan Motilal Kabre. The said application had been rejected by the High Court by the impugned order for the ground as noticed above.
- 3 On notice, the respondent-State has appeared and accepted that the appellant is not an accused in the case. Neither any FIR has been filed against him nor his name has been shown in any investigation report.
In view of the fact as noticed above, we are of the view that if any amount has been deposited by the appellant towards security for release of the accused Narayan Motilal Kabre, on the death of the accused during bail, the appellant is entitled to its refund from the concerned Court. The High Court wrongly held that the undertaking given by the son is to be equated with guarantee or promise on terms to a Court below which is not based on legal proposition. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned orders dated 21st January, 2013 in Crl. Application No. 4223/2012 in Crl.
application No. 491/2011 and dated 10.09.2013 in Crl. Appln.
No. 1929 of 2013 in Crl. Application No. 491/2011 with a direction to the respondent-State and the court to refund that amount already deposited by the appellant, forthwith.
The appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
...........................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) ............................J. (DIPAK MISRA) NEW DELHI;
MARCH 28 2014