The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Bharti Dangre refused bail to a man accused of cheating a woman by guaranteeing a favourable court decision for her son's release on bail, observing that it is a grave issue and amounts to tarnishing the judiciary's image. (Minol Anil Hudda v. State of Maharashtra)
Facts of the Case
The applicant Minol Anil Hudda arrested last year on allegations of cheating (420) and criminal breach of trust (406) of the IPC, approached the Bombay High Court for bail.
The complainant Pushpalata V. Gandhi, from Vasai outside Mumbai, claimed that her 20-year-old son was in a relationship with a minor girl and therefore booked under sections of the IPC and POCSO Act. He was arrested on January 21, 2020.
However, five months after his incarceration she became desperate for his release which is when she was introduced Hudda. Hudda assured the woman that he would "work out a settlement" and her son would be released on bail soon. She claimed to have paid him Rs.16,50,000 in instalments. However, he began giving evasive responses when her son didn't walk free.
The woman following this approached the police.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset said that such instances have become rampant and must be nipped in the bud.
The bench noted, "This tendency of guaranteeing the decision to come in favour of one party or the other amounts to maligning a particular Judge and at large, the institution itself by giving an impression that justice can be bought and the Prosecutors and Judges can be sold. These vexatious attempts are rampant and this has to be nipped in the bud."
The court further said, "Though the offence punishable is under Section 420, the nature of the allegations levelled against the Applicant where the Complainant has been duped for the aforesaid amount on the assurance that the bail will be sought by effecting 'settlement', makes the offence grave and this peculiar fact, dis-entitle the applicant to be released on bail."
The court further observed that it is common for parties to indulge in transactions to settle matters pending before the court. Sometimes this is done even without the counsel's knowledge.
The bench observed, "It is not an uncommon feature that when the matter is pending before the particular Court, the parties indulge into a transaction under the guise of 'settlement' and sometimes it so happens, even without the knowledge of counsel on record, who may prefer to argue the case on its merit."
The bench rejecting the bail application remarked, "Though the offence punishable is under Section 420, the nature of the allegations levelled against the Applicant where the Complainant has been duped for the aforesaid amount on the assurance that the bail will be sought by effecting ‘settlement’, makes the offence grave and this peculiar fact, dis-entitle the Applicant to be released on bail. The application is rejected."
Read Judgment;
SOURCE ' latestlaws.com
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments