The court emphasized that bail in serious economic offences requires careful scrutiny of evidence and potential risks, rejecting the High Court's decision as legally unsustainable.

J U D G M E N T

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 13.10.20211 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), passed by 1 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.

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 ₹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 ₹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 ₹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 ₹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 ₹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 ₹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 t