If Appellate Remedy Lies Directly To Higher Court, That Doesn't Amount To Violation Of Articles 14 or 21: Bombay High Court

While denying bail to an accused, the Bombay High Court observed that if the appellate remedy lies directly to a higher Court, that does not amount to violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.

The Court observed thus in a Bail Application filed by an accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking relief of regular bail.

A Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar emphasised, “As to the contention that the accused loses one appellate forum, this Court finds it without merit. The right of appeal is not a fundamental right; it is purely a statutory right created by the Legislature. The Legislature, depending on the nature of the subject, may consciously provide for a higher forum of appeal in certain classes of cases. If the appellate remedy lies directly to a higher Court, that does not amount to violation of Articles 14 or 21.”

The Bench said that the Right of Appeal is not a fundamental right and rather a purely statutory right created by the Legislature.

Advocate Nitin Pradhan appeared on behalf of the Applicant/Accused while APP Shilpa G. Talhar appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution case, the Complainant who was working with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), was introduced by his friend, to an investment scheme of an establishment. The said friend informed the Complainant that he himself had invested money in the same and was receiving regular returns therefrom. Encouraged by this, the Complainant was persuaded to consider investing in the scheme. The accused persons involving the Applicant herein, explained the Complainant various investment schemes and the manner in which returns would be generated. They informed him that the installment amount would be deducted from the salary account maintained by them and thereafter collected necessary documents from the Complainant. However, they did not disclose to him the exact bank or lending institutions from which the loan would be procured.

Thereafter, in due course, a sum of Rs. 38,19,927/- came to be credited into the bank account of the Complainant. However, despite assurance and execution of documents, the Complainant was not paid any returns or benefits as promised. Finding no returns forthcoming, the Complainant personally visited the office, only to discover that the said office premises were found locked and shut. Resultantly, crime was registered against the accused persons under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act). Hence, the accused approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “… the scheme of the MPID Act is designed to ensure speedy trial and finality in such matters, and the appellate forum has been consciously structured to balance the rights of depositors and the accused alike.”

The Court reiterated that while considering a bail application, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the evidence but only to see whether a prima facie case exists.

“In view of this, and considering the material on record which shows entrustment of money, its dishonest misappropriation, and fraudulent intention, this Court finds that the prosecution has made out a strong prima facie case for application of Section 409 IPC”, it noted.

The Court remarked that the principle of parity cannot be applied in a mechanical fashion and the antecedents of the Applicant themselves reveal that he is a repeat offender.

“Moreover, the present case involves more than 127 investors and an amount exceeding 7 ₹ crores, whereas the earlier case involved only 25 investors and ₹ about 82.70 lakhs. The scale and gravity of the present offence is far more severe, and therefore, the applicant cannot claim bail merely on the basis of parity”, it added.

The Court further observed that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that economic offences involving large-scale cheating and breach of trust stand on a different footing because they affect the financial system and erode public confidence.

“The principle that “bail is the rule and jail the exception” has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in several decisions. However, these very decisions also caution that such liberty is not absolute. The Court must balance individual liberty with other equally important considerations, namely, the rights of victims, the interests of society at large, and the need to ensure a fair and proper trial”, it also said.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that the modus operandi adopted by the Applicant and his associates was to lure investors with promises of extraordinary monthly returns, encourage them even to borrow from banks, and thereafter misappropriate the amounts.

“The magnitude and seriousness of the fraud cannot be overlooked. … It is also significant that the applicant has antecedents of committing similar offences, as reflected from Crime No. 123 of 2021 involving another group of investors. This shows a continuing pattern of behaviour rather than a one-time lapse. The possibility of repetition of similar offences, if the applicant is released on bail, therefore cannot be ruled out and is a strong factor against granting bail”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Bail Application.

Cause Title- Milind Satish Sawant v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:37033)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates Nitin Pradhan, Shubhada Khot, Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, Shambhavi Desai, and Gayatri Pore.

Respondent: APP Shilpa G. Talhar

Click here to read/download the Judgment