Dismissed

Alok Sharma and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2020WP/1339/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph oral judgment deals with writ petitions challenging orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate granting permanent exemption from personal appearance to accused persons subject to furnishing bail bonds within three months. The court held the orders were discretionary, non-arbitrary, and recorded cogent reasons for the bail condition, thus dismissing the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are dismissed and the rule is discharged.

Alok Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

24-WP-1339-1340-1341-1342-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1339 OF 2017
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1340 OF 2017
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1341 OF 2017

¶5

ALOK SHARMA AND OTHERS)...PETITIONERS

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.)...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.Manish Bohra i/b. A.S.Khan and Associates, Advocate for the
Petitioners.

¶9

Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶10

Mr.Lalit Katariya, Ms.Benedicta Lobo i/b. Katariya and Associates,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM:A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE:23rd JANUARY 2020

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶13

1Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

¶14

with consent of parties.

¶15

avk 1/6

¶16

24-WP-1339-1340-1341-1342-2017.doc

¶17

2Orders dated 19th December 2016 passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai,
is challenged in these petitions. By the said orders, applications of
petitioners/accused nos.5 to 7 for permanent exemption came to
be granted but with a condition that they should furnish bail
bonds within next three months.

¶18

3Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners.
By relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of

¶19

Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwandi Denim and Apparels Ltd. and
Others1 he argued that in summons cases even a Magistrate can
exempt personal appearance of the accused right from day one.
To buttress this contention, reliance is also placed on Mr.Bhaskar
Sen vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.2. In addition, it is argued that

¶20

in other four cases wherein petitioners are accused, they are
permanently exempted without asking them to furnish bail bonds.

¶21

4As against this, the learned counsel for contesting

¶22

1 (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 401

¶23

2 2004 (4) ALL MR 606

¶24

avk 2/6

¶25

24-WP-1339-1340-1341-1342-2017.doc

¶26

respondent i.e. original complainant argued that cogent reasons
are given by the learned trial Magistrate, as found in paragraph 6
of the impugned order, and therefore, no interference is required
in the impugned order.

¶27

5I have considered the submissions so advanced and
also perused the impugned orders. In paragraph 17 of its
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter ofBhaskar
Industries Ltd. (supra)has observed thus :

¶28

“17Thus, in appropriate cases the magistrate
can allow an accused to make even the first
appearance through a counsel. The magistrate is
empowered to record the plea of the accused even
when his counsel makes such plea on behalf of the
accused in a case where the personal appearance of
the accused is dispensed with. Section 317 of the
Code has to be viewed in the above perspective as it
empowers the court to dispense with the personal
attendance of the accused (provided he is
represented by a counsel in that case) even for
proceeding with the further steps in the case.
However, one precaution which the court should

¶29

avk 3/6

¶30

24-WP-1339-1340-1341-1342-2017.doc

¶31

take in such a situation is that the said benefit need
be granted only to an accused who gives an
undertaking to the satisfaction of the court that he
would not dispute his identity as the particular
accused in the case, and that a counsel on his behalf
would be present in court and that he has no
objection in taking evidence in his absence. This
precaution is necessary for the further progress of
the proceedings including examination of the
witnesses.”

¶32

6Bare perusal of this paragraph makes it clear that
discretion is vested with the learned trial court in the matter of
grant of exemption. In the cases in hand, following are the
observations of the learned trial court made in paragraph 6 of the
orders while deciding applications for grant of permanent
exemption :

¶33

“6…….However it is pertinent to note that
though the present case is triable by summons case
or summary trial procedure then also I am of
opinion that considering the cheque amount it can
not be said that the present case is of petty nature.
Moreover, before this court there are 4000 cases

¶34

avk 4/6

¶35

24-WP-1339-1340-1341-1342-2017.doc

¶36

U/sec. 138 of N.I.Act pending and in those cases
there are several instances that even after furnishing
bail and engaging advocate at the last movement of
case i.e. at the point of final arguments Advocate
who conducted the matter in absence of accused
through out the trial filed no instructions pursis and
in that circumstances atleast there is the security in
the form of bail and bonds to penalise the accused
by forfeiting the same. Here in the present case
before me Ld. Advocate for accused No.5 to 7 claims
permanent exemption without furnishing the bail,
only on sole ground that the accused are resident of
long distance but as per my opinion this ground is
not at all satisfactory to dispense the accused from
furnishing bail and bonds. According to law, bail
and bonds are taken only for the security of
appearance of the accused as and when called and
without such security I am of view that accused in
this case are not at all entitled to get exemption
from furnishing bail-bonds. However, considering
undertakings of accused on record of this case and
assurance of advocate for the accused I am of the
view that if Advocate for accused records plea on
next date on behalf of accused as per the
undertaking and agrees to submit bail application

¶37

avk 5/6

¶38

24-WP-1339-1340-1341-1342-2017.doc

¶39

and furnishes the same within 3 months then on
these conditions permanent exemption of accused
No.5 to 7 can be approved or granted.”

¶40

7I am of the considered opinion that discretionary
orders came to be passed by the learned Magistrate by exercising
his jurisdiction in terms of law. It cannot be said that exercise of
discretion by the learned trial court in these matters is arbitrary or
capricious. Cogent reasons are recorded for directing petitioners/
accused persons to furnish bail bonds while granting their prayer
for permanent exemption.

¶41

8No fault can be found in the decision making process

¶42

of the learned trial Magistrate. The impugned orders are neither
perverse nor illegal. Hence, the following order :

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i)The petitions are dismissed.

¶45

ii)Rule is discharged.

¶46

Arti V. Khatate

¶47

Digitally signed by Arti V. Khatate Date: 2020.01.24 16:21:52 +0530

¶48

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶49

avk 6/6

Alok Sharma and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Sharma and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shadaab Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shabbir Noor Mohammed Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandramani Matamani Tiwari Vs Gufic Bioscience Ltd. and Anr.

Amir Abulesh Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alok Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Alok Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.