Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3573 of 2024 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3945 of 2022]
Decided on : 28-08-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483(3)] – Grant of bail – Appeal against – Economic offences – Courts while granting bail are required to consider relevant factors such as nature of accusation, role ascribed to accused concerned, possibilities/chances of tampering with evidence and/or witnesses, antecedents, flight risk et al – Single Judge, in impugned order, has simply proceeded on premise that respondent no.1 was not a member of Society which had committed such financial irregularities – At present stage, where charge-sheet stands filed, it emerges that there is some material indicative of involvement of respondent no.1 in withdrawal of a huge amount – President of Society systematically siphoned off these funds, with aid of other office-bearers as also through respondent no.1 – In cases where allegations coupled with materials brought on record by investigation and in nature of economic offence affecting a large number of people reveal active role of accused seeking anticipatory or regular bail, it would be fit for Court granting such bail to impose appropriately strict and additional conditions – In present case, even that has not been done as High Court has imposed usual conditions simpliciter – Discretion exercised by Single Judge of High Court to grant bail to respondent no.1 was not in tune with principles that conventionally govern exercise of such power – In view of nature of alleged offence, his release on bail can seriously lead to dissipation of properties where investments have allegedly been made out of Society funds – At end of day, interests of victims of scam have also to be factored in – Impugned order stands set aside. (Paras 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Respondent no.1 was released on bail by High Court in connection with crime registered with Police Station Kotwali, Nagpur for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court in seisin shall proceed uninfluenced and in accordance with law. Given peculiar circumstances, where bail is being cancelled after a period of almost 3 years, it is deemed appropriate to grant liberty to respondent no.1 to apply for bail at a later period or in event of a change in circumstances.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 13.10.20211[Operative portion pronounced in Open Court on 13.10.2021, however the detailed Order was uploaded on the High Court’s official website on 30.10.2021.] (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Application (BA) No.867/2021, whereby and whereunder respondent no.1 was released on bail in connection with Crime No.217/2019 registered with Police Station Kotwali, Nagpur for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “MPID Act”). Be it noted, we have dismissed connected petitions vide common Order dated 07.05.2024 in S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.3946/2022 and 3938/2022. On even date, judgment was reserved in the instant appeal.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The case of the prosecution is that one accused viz. Khemchand Meharkure is the President of Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”) and he, in connivance with the co-accused, misappropriated an amount of Rs.79,54,26,963/-(Rupees Seventy Nine Crores Fifty Four Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Three). Also, it is projected in the charge-sheet that statements of 798 depositors further revealed that their deposits aggregating Rs.29,06,18,748/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Crores Six Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Eight) were not returned and the amount was misappropriated. The appellants herein are some of the depositors, who purportedly fell victim to the Society. The financial irregularities have been categorized by the prosecution under twenty-three different heads.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the respondent no.1 is a co-conspirator and a close friend of the alleged mastermind, Khemchand Meharkure. Respondent No.1 deposited an amount of Rs.2,38,39,071/-(Rupees Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand and Seventy One) with the Society in his name and in the names of his family members. As stated in the chargesheet, the respondent no.1 was paid an amount of Rs.9,69,28,500/-(Rupees Nine Crores Sixty Nine Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred) which was withdrawn from the Society and paid to him as financial assistance, upon the directions of the alleged mastermind, Khemchand Meharkure. It is further alleged that the respondent no.1 purchased five immovable properties for approximately Rs.10,00,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Crores) in the name of Khemchand Meharkure.
5. During investigation, respondent no.1 was arrested on 28.04.2021. The High Court vide the Impugned Order has released him on bail noting that the material on record is not sufficient to establish his complicity.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court erred in not appreciating the role of the respondent no.1/accused as stated in the charge-sheet and record of the case. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 and his family members were the ones to whom the amount was given by the Society's office-bearers. Respondent No.1 is the one who majorly benefitted from the scam, therefore, the High Court ought not to have released the respondent no.1.
7. It was submitted that as per the charge-sheet, amount worth Rs.79,54,26,963/-(Rupees Seventy Nine Crores Fifty Four Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Three) has been illegally disposed of by the perpetrators of the crime. Such huge amount was siphoned off by indulging in irregularities and illegal activities. Our attention was drawn towards the Forensic Audit Report wherein it has been revealed that the President of th
Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their ‘person’ but would also extend to quality of their life, including their economic well-b....
(1) Habitual offenders having criminal proclivity should not be granted bail by Court.(2) Bail – Court must appreciate and consider nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of convicti....
Grant of bail though being a discretionary order, calls for exercise of such discretion in a judicious manner and is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by Court.
Cancellation of bail – Interference or attempt to interfere with due course of investigation or administration of justice is one of prominent factors for cancellation of bail.
The court emphasized the limitations on the court's power to cancel bail and the need for strong and substantive reasons to arrest a person who is set at liberty by admitting him to bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
