Date of Judgement:
05th April 2022
Coram/judge:
The Hon’ble Justice Shri. Rajesh S. Gupta
Parties to the Case:
Appellant-Rohan Pradeep Shinde
Respondent -The State of Maharashtra
Legal Provisions:
Section 438 of CrPC, 1973 – deals with direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest or anticipatory bail.
Section 420 of IPC, 1860- which deals with the punishment for cheating
Overview
- Complainant and accused were validly married husband and wife.
- The complainant had contended that applicant /accused suppressed the material facts before the marriage that he was gay and indulged into homo sexuality and thereby committed cheating and fraud. He ruined the life and future of the complainant and was not interested in opposite sex.
- Investigating officer was present before the Court and submitted that there were chat messages between the applicant/accused and his other male partners which clearly indicates the applicant /accused was interested in same sex. It was further submitted that the applicant/accused was also suffering from contagious disease known as perianal warts and the same was suppressed before the marriage. Investigation on the aspect of bogus job offer letter which was shown by applicant/accused to the complainant to get her consent for marriage was also to be investigated.
- The marriage between the couple was solemnised only after both met with each other on several occasions. There was an allegation as to during their meetings the applicant/accused displayed a bogus job offer letter thereby stating a salary was Rs.14,00,000/p. a. As alleged, this was one of the material aspects to impress the complainant for marriage on the bogus document.
- The second issue as reported in the complaint was that soon after the marriage, while the couple went for honey moon,it was alleged that the applicant/accused avoided to consummate the marriage on the excuse of some disease. He asked the complainant to change herself in according to applicant/accused.
Arguments Advanced by The Appellant
- Learned Council for the Appellant submitted that allegations of cheating and fraud played by applicant /accused prior to the marriage were false and baseless.
- Applicant/accused had put forward that he was working and earning around Rs. 8,00,000 p.a.There were bright chances of appraisal in near future. Complainant accepted and agreed the job profile of the applicant/ accused and marriage was performed by mutual consent. The allegations were vague only with intent to harass applicant /accused and defame in the society.
Arguments Advanced by The Respondent
- Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the applicant, suppressing the substantial facts before the marriage, was only interested in financial assistance from the parent of complainant. The expenditure on marriage was around Rs.18,90,000 and other expenditures were also incurred for purchase of gold ornaments.
- Applicant /accused if released on anticipatory bail, would not be available for investigation and threaten the witnesses and hence it was prayed to reject the present bail application.
Issue
Whether the applicant should be entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail in the case pf cheating filed against him?
Judgement Analysis
- The Court was of the opinion that on carefully pursual of the allegations and the documents such as chat messages, photographs which were part and parcel of investigation, it seemed that the applicant/accused concealed some material facts of his private life before marriage and hence caused a wrongful loss to the parent and the complainant
- It was not only the financial loss but the whole life of a young girl had been spoiled by the material suppression. If this was openly shared before marriage then the consequence could have been different.
- Every individual should live in the society with dignity. No other person should be allowed to interfere into life style of other. But this should not be inferred that a person gets liberty to spoil the life of either of spouse. In the present case, the damage caused to the complainant could not be undone and was difficult to be compensated into money terms.
- The Court took into consideration the principles laid down in Gurubux Singh's Sibia & ors v. State of Punjab. Section 438 should not be suspected as to contain something sensitive, which needs to be handled with caution. Anticipatory bail should be used as a device to secure individual's liberty, it should neither be pass for commission of crimes nor a shield against any kind of accusation.
- There were possibilities that the accused/appellant might tamper the evidence if released on bail. Hence, applicant /accused was not entitled for prearrest bail. His physical interrogation was necessary. The observations made in the present order were for the limited purpose for deciding present application, it should not affect merits of the case in the final judgement.
Conclusion
The Apex Court reiterated the scope, purpose and provisions of anticipatory bail under CrPC as construed by the judiciary in various leading case laws. It was held that concealment of material facts before marriage caused a wrongful loss to the complaint and her parents. Anticipatory Bail was not to be used as a shield against such crimes or accusation. In the light of the above, the application to grant Anticipatory bail was rejected by the Learned Sessions Judge.
Learn the practical aspects of IPC HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
