Grant/Cancellation of Bail in economic offences

 

Grant/Cancellation of Bail in economic offences

Manik Madhukar Sarve and others Vs. Vitthal Damuji Meher and others

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on 28 August cancelled the bail of an accused almost 3 years after his release in connection with offences  punishable  under section 409,420,467,468,471and 120B IPC and section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in  financial Establishment) Act 1999. 

Brief Facts:

The prosecution story is that one of the accused Khemchand Meharkure is the president of the Jai SriRam Urban Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. hereinafter referred to as “the Society” and he along with co-accused embezzled the amount of Rs 79.54 crores. Further it is also stated in charge-sheet that the statement of 798 depositors revealed that their 3 deposits amounting to 29.06 crores were not refunded and the amount of misappropriated. 

The prosecution case also states that respondent no.1 is a co-conspirator and a close friend of the alleged mastermind Khemchand Meharkure. Respondent no.1 deposited a sum of 2.38 crores in the society in his and his family members ‘name. As stated in the chargesheet.

During the investigation, respondent no.1 was arrested on 28.4.2021. The High Court vide impugned order has released him on bail noting that the material on record is not sufficient to establish his complicity.

Analysis:

Having given deep consideration to the contention, we find that the exercised of discretion by the learned Single Judge in  granting bail to respondent no.1 in the order passed under section 439(1)2 of the  code of Criminal Procedure cannot be sustained.

Court’s reasoning;

While granting bail the Court are required to consider relevant factors such as nature of the accusation, the role assigned to the accused concerned, possibilities/chances of tempering with the evidence and/or witnesses, antecedents, risk of flight etc. speaking through Hema Kohli, J., the present coram in Ajwar vs. Waseem SC 2024, regarding the relevant parameters for grant of bail. 

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court observed that the Court must considered whether  bail  should be granted in serious relevant factors such as the nature of the allegations levelled against the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, the likelihood tempering with witnesses and  repeating the  offence, if the accused are released on bail,  the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings evading the  courts of justice and the overall desirability releasing the accused on bail.

In economic offences affecting large number of people court may impose strict and additional conditions for bail and Anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to surrender within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the trial court will proceed in accordance with law. We clarify that the observations made above are limited to the aspect of testing the validity of the impugned order. They shall not be treated as conclusive in respect of respondent No. 1 or any other accused. The trial court will proceed in the matter unaffected and in accordance with law. In view of the peculiar circumstances, where bail is being cancelled after a period of about 3 years, it is considered appropriate to give liberty to respondent No. 1 to apply for bail at a later date or in the event of a change in circumstances. Needless to say that such application, if and when preferred, will be considered on its merits, without prejudice to the immediate decision. The concerned authorities are directed to provide appropriate care and assistance to respondent No. 1 in respect of his medical condition.

Leave granted.