- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA v. KAPIL WADHAWAN
Factual and Procedural Background
Criminal Appeal Nos. 701–702 of 2020 arise from a Bombay High Court judgment dated 20 August 2020 that granted “default bail” to the respondents Kapil Wadhawan and another under the proviso (a)(ii) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On 27 March 2023 a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a decision that, among other things, reproduced a paragraph (paragraph 51) upholding the High Court’s order.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), the appellant, thereafter filed Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 74084 of 2023 seeking a “clarification” of that paragraph. The present order, dated 24 April 2023, disposes of that interlocutory application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether paragraph 51 of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 27 March 2023 required clarification regarding the scope of issues finally decided and its effect on the grant of default bail.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court recorded that, after hearing counsel for both sides, it found it necessary to correct paragraph 51 of its earlier judgment. The corrected paragraph expressly:
- Affirms that the Bombay High Court’s order granting default bail “is found to be in order” insofar as the question referred to and answered by the larger Bench is concerned.
- Upholds the High Court judgment dated 20 August 2020.
- Clarifies that “any other pending issues arising from these appeals are to be addressed by an appropriate Bench” of the Supreme Court.
No further analytical reasoning is set out; the order is confined to issuing the corrected text and disposing of the interlocutory application.
Holding and Implications
The interlocutory application is allowed.
Paragraph 51 of the 27 March 2023 judgment is substituted with the corrected version quoted in full by the Court. As a consequence, the grant of default bail to the respondents stands affirmed for the limited issue addressed by the larger Bench, while leaving other substantive issues in the appeals open for consideration by another Bench. The order does not create new precedent beyond this clarification and has immediate effect only on the present parties.
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.74084 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.701-702 OF 2020
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
This application is filed by the applicant/appellant seeking clarification of the judgment dated 27th March, 2023 passed by this Court. The relief sought in the prayer, inter alia, is as follows:-
"(I) Clarify 'Para 51' of the Judgment dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court to the effect that the said judgment is only restricted to answering the issue referred to the larger bench and that several other issues which have been raised in the appeal would have to be considered by the appropriate bench of this Hon'ble Court till which time the impugned order of the High Court granting default bail, cannot be upheld by holding the same to be either correct or found to be in order."
Heard Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2
The paragraph-51 in the Criminal Appeal Nos.701-702 of 2020 pronounced on 27.03.2023 by this Court following correction, should now read as under:-
"51. Following the above discussion and opinion, the impugned order of the High Court granting default bail to the respondents by applying the proviso (a) (ii) of Section 167(2) CrPC is found to be in order in terms of the reference made before this Court in respect of question referred before this Court and answered by us. Hence, we also uphold the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. Any other pending issues arising from these appeals are to be addressed by an appropriate Bench of this Court."
The Interlocutory Application No.74084 of 2023 is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ……………………………………………..J.
[K. M. JOSEPH]
……………………………………………..J.
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
……………………………………………..J.
[B. V. NAGARATHNA]
New Delhi
Dated; 24th April, 2023.
3
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.701-702/2020
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) ([ONLY IA No.74084/2023 IS TO BE LISTED UNDER THIS ITEM.] IA No. 74084/2023 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Date : 24-04-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA For Appellant(s) Mr. S. V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Kumar Choursia, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv.
Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Kulshreshtha, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv.
Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Kothari, Adv.
Ms. Urvi Gupte, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Amit K. Nain, AOR
4
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The paragraph-51 in the Criminal Appeal Nos.701-702 of 2020 pronounced on 27.03.2023 by this Court following correction, should now read as under:-
"51. Following the above discussion and opinion, the impugned order of the High Court granting default bail to the respondents by applying the proviso (a) (ii) of Section 167(2) CrPC is found to be in order in terms of the reference made before this Court in respect of question referred before this Court and answered by us. Hence, we also uphold the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. Any other pending issues arising from these appeals are to be addressed by an appropriate Bench of this Court."
The Interlocutory Application No.74084 of 2023 is allowed in terms of the signed Reportable Order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(JAGDISH KUMAR) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Original signed Reportable Order in I.A. No.74084 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal Nos.701-702 of 2020 is placed on the file)
Alert