Mumbai, Maharashtra – On November 2, 2015, the Special Judge for CBI, Greater Bombay, Shri N. K. More, rejected the bail application of Mr. Suresh M. Kamat, Accused No. 1, in connection with Special Case No. 18 of 2000 (RC. No. 45(A)/97). The court dismissed the application, citing the accused’s history of absconding and breach of previous bail conditions, despite arguments of changed circumstances.
Mr. Kamat, 51, sought bail under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This was his second bail application, with a previous one (No. 12 of 2015) having been rejected on merits.
Arguments Presented
Applicant’s Submissions:
Advocate Mrs. Bagal, representing Mr. Kamat, argued that despite the previous rejection, there were “change of circumstances” warranting bail. She contended that:
- The accused had previously been released on bail and regularly attended court. His subsequent absence was attributed to his advocate on record failing to inform him of the hearing dates.
- The trial was expected to be lengthy due to the large number of documents and witnesses, and it was “not justified to keep the accused in the judicial custody for unlimited period.”
- His presence could be secured by impounding his passport and requiring a bank guarantee.
- She also pleaded for bail on “humanity grounds,” stating that the accused’s mother was suffering from an ailment.
CBI’s Opposition:
SPP Ms. Patil, representing the CBI, strongly opposed the bail application, arguing its non-maintainability due to a lack of genuine change in circumstances. She highlighted that:
- The previous bail application (No. 12 of 2015) was decided on its merits.
- Mr. Kamat had absconded, leading the court to split his case from the other co-accused to proceed with their trial.
- He had breached conditions of his earlier bail order, specifically by leaving India without the court’s permission.
- The SPP asserted a high possibility of the accused absconding again if released on bail.
Court’s Decision and Rationale
Special Judge N. K. More, after considering the submissions and the facts of the case, held that the application “deserved to be rejected.” The court’s reasoning primarily focused on the accused’s past conduct:
- The court emphasized that the previous bail application was thoroughly considered and rejected on merits, specifically noting that Mr. Kamat had been absent from court since 2004.
- Despite bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants, and even a proclamation being issued, his presence could not be secured, leading to his case being severed from the other accused.
- The judge found significant substance in the CBI’s contention that Mr. Kamat had breached a key condition of his earlier bail, which mandated him not to leave India without prior court permission. The court explicitly noted that the “accused left India without the permission of the court.”
- The court concluded that the accused had “not put forth any ground or change of circumstances by way of this application to secure the bail order in his favour.” Given his history, the court found a “every possibility of absconding the accused” if released.
Consequently, Bail Application No. 16 of 2015 was rejected and disposed of. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against individuals who misuse judicial liberty and fail to adhere to court directives, particularly in cases where their absence impacts the progression of a trial.