Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.           OF 2014 ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No. 2375 of 2014

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

PAPPU @ SURESH BUDHARMAL KALANI … RESPONDENT     

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra against  

the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on  

7th March,  2014 in  Criminal  Application No.  1788 of  2013 in  

Criminal  Appeal  No.  1309  of  2013  whereby  the  High  Court  

granted bail to the sole respondent.  

1

Page 2

3. The respondent was accused in Crime No. 89 of 1990 of  

the Vitthalwada Police Station, Thane registered under Section  

120(B) read with Section 302, IPC on the allegation of hatching  

criminal conspiracy in the killing of the deceased Inder Bhatija.  

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against  

the respondent-accused and the trial Court by order dated 29 th  

November, 2013 convicted and sentenced him to undergo life  

imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer  

rigorous imprisonment for six months.

4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the  

trial Court, the respondent-accused preferred Criminal Appeal  

No.  1309  of  2013  before  the  High  Court.  Considering  his  

Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2013, the High Court enlarged  

him  on  bail  by  the  order  dated  7th March,  2014  which  is  

impugned herein.  Against  the said order,  the State preferred  

this appeal.

5. When the matter came up before us on 12-03-2014, we  

issued notice and directed that if the respondent-accused not  

being  released  pursuant  to  the  impugned  order  of  the  High  

Court till date, there shall be stay of the said order.

2

Page 3

6. Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel appearing for the  

State of Maharashtra contended that the accused is involved in  

as many as 52 cases, out of which in 20 cases offences were  

registered against him before going to jail and while he was in  

jail. 32 cases were registered after being released by this Court  

on conditional bail in August, 2001.  He has given a list of 52  

cases where the respondent is accused. It  is also contended  

that in the present case, when the investigation was going on, it  

was  found  by  the  police  that  the  respondent  was  the  

mastermind  behind  the  murder  of  the  deceased.  The  High  

Court, while granting bail to the accused, has not considered  

any  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  and  history  of  the  

respondent. Simply relying upon the evidence of some of the  

witnesses,  the  High  Court  granted  bail  without  applying  its  

mind. He also contended that the grant of bail to the accused  

would  adversely  affect  the  trial  and  investigation  in  other  

criminal cases pending against him and there is also likelihood  

of  tampering  with  the  evidence.  The  respondent  being  a  

political  leader,  there  is  every  chance  for  influencing  the  

3

Page 4

pending  criminal  cases  in  which  very  serious  offences  were  

charged against him and prayed for cancellation of bail.

7. A Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8543 of 2014 has  

been filed  in  the  present  appeal  by  one  Kamal  Bathija  who  

claims to be the brother of the deceased Inder Bhatija, seeking  

leave  of  this  Court  to  implead  himself  as  an  appellant.  

Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the  impleading  party,  supported  the  case  of  the  State  

Government and sought for cancellation of bail. He contended  

that  the  High  Court  has  not  fully  appreciated  the  facts  and  

evidence before granting bail to the accused. The High Court  

ignored  the  main  fact  that  the  respondent-accused  was  the  

mastermind in hatching the criminal conspiracy for the murder  

of the deceased by engaging habitual and professional killers.  

Above all, during the pendency of trial in the present case, the  

respondent had committed several other criminal offences and  

hence bail granted by the High Court shall be cancelled.

8. On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Uday  U.  Lalit,  learned  senior  

counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, while drawing  

our  attention to a list  of  cases in  which the respondent  was  

4

Page 5

acquitted, contended that the respondent has already spent 9  

long years in jail during the pendency of trial, and not even one  

witness  supported  the  case  of  the  prosecution,  more  

particularly, the crucial witnesses i.e. wife (PW 20) and father  

(PW 12) of the deceased themselves have turned hostile and  

another  crucial  witness  i.e.  PW  9—Driver  has  also  turned  

hostile. Hence, taking into account these facts, the High Court  

has rightly exercised its discretion in granting bail.  When the  

bail was granted after taking into consideration all the facts and  

circumstances, material witnesses and particularly when there  

is no prima facie evidence against the accused, the bail granted  

by the High Court cannot be questioned.

9. Learned senior counsel further submitted that since the  

respondent is a political leader, he was falsely implicated in the  

case so as to prevent him in participating in active political life.  

Even in the list of cases furnished by the appellant, out of total  

number of 52 cases against the accused, 35 cases were ended  

in acquittal, 10 cases are purely politically motivated, in around  

13 cases the trial was pending, and in some cases the State  

has falsely shown the name of respondent as accused and at  

5

Page 6

present  no  serious  case  is  pending  against  the  respondent  

where he was charged as accused. Hence, there is no reason  

for  this Court  to interfere with the order passed by the High  

Court.

10. It is also brought to our notice that the appeal is pending  

before the High Court  and as per the present  roaster  of  the  

Bombay  High  Court,  the  turn  of  the  appeal  filed  by  the  

respondent will come up for hearing after fifteen years.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taking  

into consideration the fact that the deceased was none other  

than the younger brother of the applicant in Crl.M.P. No. 8543  

of 2014 who prayed for impleadment, we allow the application.

12. We have also considered the principles laid down by this  

Court while cancelling bail, in Puran etc. etc. Vs. Rambilas &  

Anr. etc. etc. (2001) 6 SCC 338,  Dr. Narendra K. Amin Vs.  

State of Gujarat & Anr. (2008) 13 SCC 584, Ash Mohammad  

Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 446  

and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy  

(2013) 7 SCC 452.

6

Page 7

13. The issue before us is  whether  it  is  necessary for  this  

Court  to  interfere  with  the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  

granting bail to the accused-respondent.

14. Normally,  this  Court  does  not  exercise  its  jurisdiction  

under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  in  interfering  in  the  

discretionary  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  granting  bail,  

particularly when the criminal appeal is pending before it, but in  

our view, the reason given by the High Court  in the present  

case,  that  the  father  and  wife  of  the  deceased have  turned  

hostile,  cannot  be  a  ground  to  grant  bail.  Apart  from  these  

witnesses  who  turned  hostile,  there  was  other  material  and  

witnesses  available,  which  the  High  Court  ought  to  have  

considered while granting bail. The High Court should not have  

ignored the fact that admittedly, the accused is involved in as  

many as 52 cases and out of them in 20 cases offences were  

registered against him before going to jail and during his stay in  

jail. 32 cases were registered after being released by this Court  

on conditional bail in August, 2001.  

15. It is not in dispute that in spite of being acquitted in some  

of the cases, still there are 15 cases in which trial is pending  

7

Page 8

against  the  respondent,  out  of  which  two  cases  are  under  

Sections 302 read with 120B, IPC.  In the present case also,  

initially  along  with  charges  under  Sections  302/120B,  IPC  

offences  punishable  under  TADA were also  charged against  

the respondent but later on the TADA charges were withdrawn.  

Though we are not inclined to go into the matter in detail  at  

present  to  interfere  in  the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court,  

taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances  

of  the case,  we are  inclined to  interfere  and cancel  the bail  

granted by the High Court.

16. At the same time, we have considered some merit in the  

argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-accused. It  

is not in dispute that the respondent-accused was arrested on  

29-01-1993 after registering Crime No. 89 of 1990 on 28-04-

1990.  He  was  released  on  bail  on  07-08-2001.  Thereafter,  

again after judgment in the Sessions Case No. 218 of 1999 on  

29-11-2013, he was again taken into custody. After filing the  

Criminal Appeal before the Bombay High Court on 30-07-2013,  

by  the  impugned  order,  the  High  Court  granted  bail  to  the  

respondent. There is no doubt that the respondent is in jail for  

8

Page 9

almost  9  years.  In  consideration  of  the  arguments  of  the  

learned counsel for the respondent that it will take a number of  

years for the High Court to hear the appeal, we thought it fit to  

request  the  High  Court  to  dispose  of  the  appeal  as  

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year  

from today on its own merits without being influenced by any of  

the views expressed by us in this order.

17. Accordingly,  we  allow  the  appeal  and  set  aside  the  

impugned judgment.

…………………………………CJI. (P. SATHASIVAM)

……………………………………J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

 ……………………………………J.

(N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI, APRIL  24, 2014

9