Case Law Details
Hanumant Jagannath Nazirkar Vs State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court of India)
The case concerns a Deputy Director of Town Planning, Amaravati, who was accused of possessing disproportionate assets worth ₹82,38,34,941 during the period from 23 January 1986 to 18 June 2020. Following a complaint made to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), a discreet inquiry and later an open inquiry were conducted. Based on the inquiry, FIR No. 736 of 2020 was registered for offences under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and allied provisions of the IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
Read Bombay HC Judgment in this case: Bombay HC Denies Bail as Disproportionate Assets Allegedly Exceeded Known Income by 1152%
A separate case, Crime No. 644 of 2020, was registered on the complaint of a fruit vendor who alleged that a co-accused had obtained blank stamp papers and cheques from him and other vendors and used them to create documents showing inflated fruit sale transactions. According to the prosecution, these documents were intended to justify the assets under scrutiny in the disproportionate assets investigation.
Before the Bombay High Court, the applicant sought bail in both cases. He contended that he had been in custody for more than a year, the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed. He argued that the ACB had wrongly rejected substantial income sources of himself and his family members, overvalued agricultural assets, and incorrectly considered current market values. He further claimed that assets inherited by his wife from her father had not been properly taken into account. The applicant also submitted that the prosecution had cited more than 80 witnesses and that the trial would take considerable time.
The State opposed the bail plea, contending that the applicant possessed assets substantially in excess of his known sources of income. According to the prosecution, the disproportionate assets amounted to approximately 1151.99% of his known income. The State relied on witness statements and other material collected during the investigation and alleged that the co-accused had helped create documents showing inflated fruit sale transactions to justify the applicant’s assets.
The Bombay High Court held that, at the stage of considering bail, it was not appropriate to undertake a detailed examination of the evidence. The Court noted that the investigating agency had collected material showing a substantial difference between the applicant’s assets and known sources of income and that several witness statements prima facie indicated his involvement. The Court observed that disputes regarding valuation of assets, income calculations, and inheritance claims would have to be examined during trial. It also rejected the contention that there was no reason to fabricate a will relating to the assets of the applicant’s father-in-law, noting that the deceased had left behind a widow who was also a legal heir.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, the Bombay High Court refused bail in Crime No. 736 of 2020, the principal disproportionate assets case. However, in Crime No. 644 of 2020, the Court found that the complaint principally referred to the role of the co-accused in obtaining documents from fruit vendors. Consequently, the applicant was granted bail in that case subject to conditions.
The applicant thereafter approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in connection with FIR No. 736 of 2020. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for more than one and a half years and that the charge sheet had already been filed. The State of Maharashtra and the intervenor opposed the petition. After considering the facts and circumstances mentioned in the petition and perusing the State’s counter affidavit, the Supreme Court allowed the prayer for bail. The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court considered appropriate.
The Supreme Court further requested the trial court to expedite the trial. Accordingly, while the Bombay High Court had earlier declined bail in the disproportionate assets case, the Supreme Court subsequently granted bail, taking into account the period of custody and the filing of the charge sheet, while directing that the trial proceed expeditiously.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 736/2020 dated 18.06.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109, 420, 465, 468, 471, 472, 474, 475, 120-B (Special Case No. 482/2021) of Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner, by way of present Special Leave Petition has preferred a bail application. We have perused the counter affidavit filed by the State.
The petition is vehemently opposed by Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel appearing for State of Maharashtra and Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor.
The petitioner is behind the bars for more than one and a half years. Charge-sheet has already been filed.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned in the petition, we are inclined to allow the prayer for bail. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and appropriate by the learned Trial Judge.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Trial Judge is requested to expedite the trial.
The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
