Bail secured by murder accused by hoodwinking the system, suppressing facts: Bombay High Court imposes Rs. 50,000 costs

The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant bail to a murder accused after it came to light that he had fradulently obtained bail from sessions court by suppressing material facts (Shubham Soni v. State of Maharashtra)..While dismissing the petition, Justice Rohit B Deo quoted from the Hamlet "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark” to highlight "the disturbing ease with which the applicant secured bail, by gross suppression". .He emphasised that the "credibility of the justice dispensation system is the collective responsibility of all the stakeholders; the judges, the bar, the litigants and the common man"; while adding that whatever was wrong with the state of affairs in the system was that "its credibility was in perils" and the enemy was from within. "The erosion of the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation system, more often than not, is attributable to stakeholders, who may not be alive to their pious duty and responsibility to ensure that the stream of justice flows unpolluted and unhindered," the High Court said. .Justice Deo was hearing a case filed by Shubham Soni, the applicant, who was arraigned as an accused for committing a brutal murder. .He had moved for bail before Additional Sessions Judge SS Deshpande who refused bail after minutely scrutinising the material in the chargesheet and the submissions.The judge also recorded that the applicant is "a history-sheeter and is facing as many as six prosecutions involving serious offences" and that "there is overwhelming evidence to link the applicant with the brutal killing and a weapon is also recovered at his instance"..Two days after the rejection of bail, the assignment changed and the applicant sensed an opportunity to prefer an application for bail before another Sessions Judge VD Ingle. The details of the first bail application was not disclosed and neither was the rejection order placed on record, although there was a note which mentioned that this was a "second bail application". .Judge Ingle granted bail to Soni but for the intervention by the complainant who then compelled the prosecution to move an application seeking cancellation of bail.Judge Ingle then cancelled the bail granted to Soni and this order was assailed before the Nagpur Bench.The High Court observed that the note which was attached in the second application before judge Ingle was "a machiavellian lip service paid to the solemn duty of true and faithful disclosure of the rejection of the first bail application on merits". .Judge Ingle may not have realised that she was considering a successive application preferred 48 hours back, the High Court noted. It observed that the prosecution had not drawn the attention of Judge Ingle to the note either. "The prosecutor was silent, and the learned Judge failed to hear the alarm bells, which the conveniently and deceptively worded “disclosure” ought to have set ringing," the High Court remarked..The Court remarked that Soni secured the bail by “hoodwinking the system and merrily walked out of the prison a free man.“ .Soni’s counsel RR Vyas tried to argue that strict rules of pleadings are not applicable to bail application and the degree of disclosure is not absolute.Recording the argument ”out of courtesy” the Court highlighted that it was “the duty is to make a true and faithful disclosure, and not a half truth with the intent of subverting the administration of justice“. .Dismissing the petition, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 which was directed to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Sub-Committee, Nagpur, within 15 days..[Read order]