Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Satish Dhond and Sadanand Shet Tanavade, were accused in Crime No.15/2005 registered under Sections 465, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC at Porvorim Police Station. The crime was registered on a complaint by Filipe Neri Rodrigues, an MLA from Velim Constituency. The applicants were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, on 7th March 2005. The State of Goa filed an application for cancellation of the bail, which was allowed by the same court on 15th October 2005. The applicants then filed criminal revision applications under Section 482 CrPC challenging the cancellation order. The High Court examined the facts leading to the complaint, which involved political developments in Goa after the 2002 Assembly elections. The BJP-led coalition government was reduced to minority after resignations and withdrawal of support. Two disqualification petitions were filed against Filipe Neri Rodrigues, one by Rajesh Patnekar and another by applicant Sadanand Shet Tanavade. The complaint alleged that the applicants fabricated a letter purportedly written by Filipe Neri Rodrigues to the Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly, indicating his intention to join the BJP, and used it in the disqualification petition. The High Court noted that the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail without issuing notice to the Special Public Prosecutor and without considering the case diary or any other material. The court held that this was a serious irregularity and that the order granting bail was liable to be cancelled under Section 439(2) CrPC. The court also observed that the applicants had not approached the court with clean hands and that the bail order was obtained by suppressing material facts. The High Court dismissed the revision applications and upheld the cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Cancellation - Section 439(2) CrPC - Bail granted without notice to prosecution or consideration of relevant material is liable to be cancelled - The court held that the order granting anticipatory bail was passed without notice to the State and without considering the case diary or other material, which vitiated the order. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Notice to Prosecution - Section 438 CrPC - It is mandatory to give notice to the prosecution before granting anticipatory bail in serious cases - The court observed that the learned Sessions Judge failed to give notice to the Special Public Prosecutor and did not consider the case diary, which was a serious irregularity. (Paras 6-8) C) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Consideration of Material - Section 438 CrPC - The court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation and the material available before granting anticipatory bail - The court noted that the learned Sessions Judge did not peruse the case diary or any other material, and thus the order was unsustainable. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the applicants was liable to be cancelled on the ground that it was granted without notice to the prosecution and without considering the relevant material.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision applications and upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail cancellation
- Section 439(2) CrPC
- Notice to prosecution
- Consideration of relevant material
- Abuse of process of court
