Satish P. Bhatt v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr

The High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation of his bail and the order of suspension of sentence. Whether the High Court was justified.

Judicial Directives – Disregard for – The High Court cancelled the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the appellant and intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) as they violated the undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition in an order granting extension of time to comply – Propriety:

Held: Before the High Court the appellant and the intervenor filed an undertaking based on a settlement on 03.07.2018 according to which it was agreed that a total sum of Rs.4,63,50,000/- (Out of the said amount Rs.73,50,000/- was already paid and remaining amount of Rs.3,90,00,000/- was to be paid in instalments) would be paid to the complainant-respondent no.2 – Based on the said undertaking an interim protection was granted by suspending the sentence of imprisonment and they were directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond – However, there was a failure to fulfil financial obligations – Appellant and intervenor made submissions before the Supreme Court regarding, who is to pay how much amount – The Court not inclined to go into the said question – The fact remains that the total amount agreed to be paid has not been paid and as per the order of the High Court, the revisionists (appellant and intervenor) being in default in payment of the agreed amount, the interim protection granted by way of bail and suspension of sentence, would stand withdrawn without reference to the Court – No infirmity in the impugned order of the High Court – The appeal is accordingly dismissed DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS with costs quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to the respondent No. 2 (Complainant). [Paras 7, 8, 17, 19]