Case: State of Maharashtra Vs. Nainmal Punjaji Shah &amp; Another

Rs. 25 lakhs for relief work in Rajasthan but the High Court felt that it was difficult to say with any reasonable certainty that a donation of Rs. 25 lakhs had in fact been made by Nainmal and that the same had been made out of his own earnings.22. The High Court was, however, impressed by the fact that although the respondents had been released on bail in two other cases which were pending they neither escaped nor attempted to tamper with the evidence on the side of the prosecution in those cases. Gatne, J., concluded on this part of the case thus :"On the materials, as they stand, there is in my opinion, no foundation for the belief that the respondents would in fact leave India and abscond in the event of their being released on bail. Both the respondents are persons having a family and property in India. In fact respondent No. 1 has a wife, who is expecting to deliver in the month of August, 1969".The High Court also repelled the contention of the Customs that the respondents would tamper with the evidence in the case. The High Court also refused to accept the allegation of the Customs that it was the respondents who had induced Gopal Shivalkar to escape from custody.23. The High Court refused to attach any credence to the statement of Pokhraj that his evidence had been attempted to be tempered with. On the whole the High Court was of the view that there was no justification for the apprehension that if the respondents were released on bail they would further indulge in similar activities.24. The High Court then considered whether it was still necessary to detain the respondents in the interest of smooth and efficient investigation of this somewhat extraordinary case. The High Court observed :"Having regard to the nature of the case and the difficulties which must naturally arise in investigation of this kind, it seems to me that there is some justification for Mr. Porus Mehtas contention that it would not be advisable to set the respondents at liberty before at least the crucial stage of the investigation is over. Mr. Porus Mehta has urged that some important investigation still remains to be made and remain to be carried out. Mr. Porus Mehta undertakes to file the complaint against these respondents before the expiry of six months from today. On the other hand, Mr. Peerbhoy points out that enough time was already granted to the prosecution to carry out this important investigation during the past two or three months. That no doubt is true, but some further time is, in my opinion, necessary in the interest of justice and fair play. If the liberty of an individual is important, the necessity of investigations of this kind being carried out in a smooth and efficient manner is equally important".The High Court, therefore, directed as follows :"I would, therefore, direct that this order of confirmation of bail shall operate after the expiry of two months from today. In the meantime, the prosecution would of course have to approach the Magistrate for remand from time to time as required by law. Even after the expiry of two months, it would be open to the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate to consider if the exigencies of investigations or any other important circumstances justify the grant of further remand to these respondents".The High Court raised the amount of bail in the case of respondent Nainmal from 15 lakhs to 20 lakhs and in the case of respondent Champalal from 5 lakhs to 7 1/2 lakhs. The High Court further directed that the other conditions imposed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate shall stand in tact. Accordingly subject to the aforesaid modifications the order of bail was confirmed and the revision application dismissed.25. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Porus Mehta, at length. While we are impressed with the extraordinary nature of the facts of this case and that the investigations should proceed fairly and efficiently, it is impossible to say that no bail should be granted to the respondents during the pendency of the whole of the investigations. It was stated on behalf of the Customs before Gatne, J., that the complaint would be filed within six months from that date. We are of the view that the respondents cannot be detained in custody longer than that period. No material has been shown to us to enable us to differ from the finding of the High Court that on the facts placed before us and before the High Court there is any reasonable apprehension that the respondents would try to leave India. In such matters there must be absolute certainty that he was likely to leave the country before a Court would detain an accused indefinitely during the whole period of the investigation. If this consideration is kept aside, the only other consideration would be the reasonable apprehension that evidence would be tampered with. Here again no material has been placed before us to show that we should come to a finding different from that of the High Court. The third consideration is the larger interest of the State, as pointed out by this Court in State v. Jagjit Singh. We feel that this interest was not adequately kept in view by the High Court and this requires that the respondents should be kept in custody for six months from the date of the order of the High Court dated August 1, 1969. We may mention that the State undertakes not to ask for remand to custody if it is no longer absolutely essential that the respondents be kept in custody. As already stated, the State will continue to apply for remand and if some facts which we have not taken into consideration or anticipated come to light the Chief Presidency Magistrate would be entitled to forward to us his recommendations that the order we have made should be modified in any respect.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]2. The question before us is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the High Court should be maintained or modified in any manner.Ordinarily this Court does not go into these questions but, as will be presently seen the facts in this case are extraordinary and this Court felt that the matter should be looked into by it.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Porus Mehta, at length. While we are impressed with the extraordinary nature of the facts of this case and that the investigations should proceed fairly and efficiently, it is impossible to say that no bail should be granted to the respondents during the pendency of the whole of the investigations. It was stated on behalf of the Customs before Gatne, J., that the complaint would be filed within six months from that date. We are of the view that the respondents cannot be detained in custody longer than that period. No material has been shown to us to enable us to differ from the finding of the High Court that on the facts placed before us and before the High Court there is any reasonable apprehension that the respondents would try to leave India. In such matters there must be absolute certainty that he was likely to leave the country before a Court would detain an accused indefinitely during the whole period of the investigation. If this consideration is kept aside, the only other consideration would be the reasonable apprehension that evidence would be tampered with. Here again no material has been placed before us to show that we should come to a finding different from that of the High Court. The third consideration is the larger interest of the State, as pointed out by this Court in State v. Jagjit Singh. We feel that this interest was not adequately kept in view by the High Court and this requires that the respondents should be kept in custody for six months from the date of the order of the High Court dated August 1, 1969. We may mention that the State undertakes not to ask for remand to custody if it is no longer absolutely essential that the respondents be kept in custody. As already stated, the State will continue to apply for remand and if some facts which we have not taken into consideration or anticipated come to light the Chief Presidency Magistrate would be entitled to forward to us his recommendations that the order we have made should be modified in any respect.