http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.)  5321 of 2004

PETITIONER: C.R. Patil                                                       

RESPONDENT: State of Gujarat and Ors.                                        

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/07/2005

BENCH: CJI R.C. Lahoti,C.K. Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4681 of 2005 (For clarification of Court’s Order dated 07.03.2005)

IN   Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5321 of 2004 WITH

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5492 of 2004

Chotubhai Eknath Patil                                  \005.   Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Gujarat                                                \005.   Respondents

       This petition is filed for clarification of the order passed by this  Court on March 7, 2005 by which the petitioners were released on  temporary bail.  A prayer is made to enlarge the petitioners on bail till  further orders and/or pending hearing of Special Leave Petitions filed  by them.  

       It is the case of the petitioners that First Information Report  dated October 23, 2002 was lodged with DCB Police Station, Surat  against several accused including the petitioners herein.  It was  alleged that certain offences had been committed by the accused and  huge amount had been misappropriated.  Criminal Miscellaneous  Application Nos. 3331 and 5302, both of 2003 were disposed of by  the High Court of Gujarat by an order dated October 6, 2004 rejecting  the prayer for grant of bail.  Against the said order, the petitioners  have approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petitions  (Criminal) Nos. 5321 and 5492 of 2004.  Notice was issued by this  Court and by an order dated March 7, 2005, temporary bail was  granted.  The said order reads as under:\027         "Adjourned by six weeks.                  After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it  is directed that the petitioner shall be released on  temporary bail on furnishing a personal bond in an  amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with  two solvent sureties of the like amount to the  satisfaction of the Sessions Court, Surat, on the same  terms and conditions as are contained in the operative  part of the order dated 25.07.2003 passed by the High  Court in Crl. Misc. Application Nos.3331/2003 and  5302/2003."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       It is stated by the petitioners that they were enlarged on  temporary bail in pursuance of the order passed by this Court.  It was  further stated that the Special Leave Petitions were to come up for  hearing on October 7, 2005, but at the request of the respondents, the  hearing was pre-poned to August 5, 2005.  Since the order of this  Court was to release the petitioners on temporary bail and that period  was to be over, they have filed the present petition on April 18, 2005.   On May 13, 2005, this Hon’ble Court issued notice. The learned  counsel for the State waived service of notice and sought time for  having instructions which was granted by the Court. No interim  order, however, was passed in favour of the petitioners.   Hence, the  petitioners surrendered on April 21, 2005 and at present, they are in  jail.                  We have heard Shri KTS Tulsi, Senior counsel for the  petitioners and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija for the respondents.                    The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the  petitioners are willing to pay the amount and sincere and honest  attempts/efforts have been made by them.  It is also stated that in  Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3331 of 2003 and 5302 of  2003, the petitioners were enlarged on temporary bail at one stage on  certain conditions by the High Court.  Those applications were,  however, finally rejected. The counsel submitted that the petitioners  started negotiations with the respondents and submitted proposal for  payment of the amount.  It was also submitted that the petitioners  were ready to re-pay the loan of Rs.50.40 crores as mentioned in the  proposal.  Moreover, Special Leave Petitions would come up for  hearing in near future.  They are in jail since long and no useful  purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bar, particularly  when they have shown their bona fide and have expressed their  willingness to pay the amount to the respondents.  If they will be  enlarged on bail, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents  inasmuch as even in past when they were on bail, they had complied  with terms and conditions imposed on them.  Moreover, they will be  able to make necessary arrangements for payment of the amount  which according to the respondents is due and payable.  It was,  therefore, submitted that an appropriate order may be passed  releasing the petitioners on bail till further orders and/or till pending  Special Leave Petitions.

       The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,  submitted that the amount due and payable has gone up to Rs. 97  crores.  So far as  the proposal made by the petitioners to pay  Rs.50.40 crores is concerned, the same was considered by the officers  of the respondent and it was rejected on various grounds mentioned  in the letter communicated to the petitioners.  In the affidavit-in-reply  filed by D.P. Joshi, Joint Registrar (Audit), Co-operative Societies of  Gujarat State, it was stated that the High-level Committee constituted  by the Government of Gujarat considered the proposal but did not  accept it.  Since substantial amount remains unpaid and the  petitioners have taken undue advantage of their position, the High  Court rightly rejected the bail applications, and no case is made out at  this stage for grant of bail.

       Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the  view that it would be in the interest of justice to grant prayer of the  petitioners.  As stated in the petition itself, the order passed by the  High Court is subject matter of challenge and Special Leave Petitions  are pending before this Court.  It has also come on record that earlier  prayer for temporary bail was granted by this Court pursuant to which  the petitioners were enlarged on bail, no doubt for a temporary  period.  It is not even the allegation of the respondents that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

petitioners have violated terms and/or conditions of the said order  passed by this Court. When the petitioners have shown their  willingness to pay the amount and the Special Leave Petitions are  pending, this Court will consider all aspects when the matters will be  taken up for hearing.  But in view of the fact that an order was passed  by this Court temporarily releasing them on bail is over and Special  Leave Petitions await hearing and as stated by learned counsel for the  petitioners, the petitioners intend to enter into meaningful  negotiations with the respondents and to do all the necessary acts for  payment of loan amount, it would be in the interest of justice to  enlarge them on bail so as to enable them to make arrangements for  such payment.

       For the foregoing reasons, the application deserves to be  allowed and is accordingly allowed.  The petitioners are ordered to be  enlarged on bail till further orders on their each furnishing a personal  bond in an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two  solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions  Court, Surat, on the same terms and conditions on which they were  released on bail by this Court on March 7, 2005.          As is clear, we are allowing bail to the two petitioners  persuaded by very peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and  guided mainly by the consideration that their retention in jail would  be adverse to the interest of the several investors/depositors of the  bank while the latter are likely to be benefited by the release of the  petitioners on temporary bail, it is hoped that the petitioners shall  make a genuine effort making use of their liberty to clear the debts.   If the petitioners are found to have failed in discharging this  obligation or misusing their liberty in any way, the order of bail shall  be liable to be recalled.  

       The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of  accordingly.