Case Note & Summary
The case involves an application by Rajesh Thomas Menzes challenging an order dated 11 May 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, which cancelled his pre-arrest bail and issued a non-bailable warrant against him. The background is that a first informant, Santosh V. Soans, lodged a report alleging that he and other investors, including respondent No.2 David Fracis D'Souza, were induced by the applicant and co-accused Amit Jain and Yogesh Bhalerao to invest in a scheme floated by Aaj Edu Plus Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., promising lucrative returns. The total fraud was approximately Rs. 8 Crores. The applicant was a Sales Manager at the company. An FIR was registered under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The applicant was granted pre-arrest bail on 10 August 2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing, and a chargesheet was filed on 8 November 2021. Respondent No.2, claiming to be an investor, filed an application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail on 8 September 2022, alleging that the applicant had suppressed material facts and played a major role in the fraud. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application, cancelling the bail and directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. The applicant challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, set aside the impugned order and restored the pre-arrest bail, holding that the allegations of suppression were not substantiated and that the cancellation was not justified.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Cancellation of Bail - Suppression of Facts - The court considered whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant could be cancelled on the ground that he had suppressed material facts. The court held that the cancellation of anticipatory bail requires strong grounds such as suppression of material facts or misuse of liberty, and mere suspicion is insufficient. The burden lies on the applicant seeking cancellation to prove such grounds. In this case, the allegations of suppression were not substantiated, and the cancellation was set aside. (Paras 1-16) B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Further Investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC - The court noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the court did not specifically address this direction in the final order, as the main issue was the cancellation of bail. (Para 3.5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant was liable to be cancelled on the ground of suppression of material facts and the need for further investigation.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 11 May 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai is set aside. The pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant by order dated 10 August 2021 in ABA No.552 of 2021 is restored.
Law Points
- Cancellation of anticipatory bail requires strong grounds such as suppression of material facts or misuse of liberty
- mere suspicion insufficient
- burden on applicant seeking cancellation
- pre-arrest bail not to be cancelled lightly
