MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE vs. VITHAL DAMUJI MEHER

Full Judgment Text

1 REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 636 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3573 OF 202	4

[	@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.3945 OF 2022	]

MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS.				… APPELLANTS

VERSUS

VITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER	& ORS.		…RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

	Leave granted.

2.		The present appeal arises from the	f	inal	j	udgment and order dated

Signature Not Verified

1 by3.10.2021<br>JA<br>28	1	(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. 2

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	r	espondent

n	o.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 reveal	ed	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	r	espondent	n	o.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	S	ociety		in his name and in the

names of his family members. As stated in the chargesheet, the

r	espondent	n	o.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	S	ociety and paid to him as financial assistance,

upon the	direct	ions of	the alleged mastermind, Khemchand Meharkure. It

is further alleged that the	r	espondent	n	o.1 purchased five immovable

properties for approximately	₹	10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) in the

name of Khemchand Meharkure. 4

5.		During investigation,	r	espondent	n	o.1 was arrested on 28.04.2021.

The	High Court	vide	the	I	mpugned	O	rder has released him on bail noting

that the material on record is not sufficient to establish his complicity.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS	:

6.		Learned c	ounsel for the	a	ppellants submitted that the High Court

erred in not appreciating the role of the	respondent	n	o.1/	accused as

stated in the charge	-	sheet and record of the case. It is submitted that the

r	espondent	n	o.1	and his family members were the one	s	to whom the

amount was given by the	S	ociety'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	r	espondent	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 i	rregularities and illegal activities. Our attention was drawn

towards the	F	orensic	A	udit	R	eport wherein it has been revealed that	the

President	of the	S	ociety colluded with the r	espondent no.1/accused and

relatives of	respondent no.1/accused invested an amount of

₹	2,38,39,071/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Thirty Nine

Thousand and Seventy One) against which he was given financial

assistance of	₹	9,6	9	,28,500/- (Rupees Nine Crores Sixty	Nine	Lakhs

Twenty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred), which amount was not refunded.

8.		Learned	c	ounsel further pointed out that the	i	mpugned	o	rder did

not take into consideration	the	statements of	the Society’s	staff recorded

during investigation	. It was advanced that	the High Court ought to have

appreciated that the chances of	the	r	espondent		n	o.1, as also the other

co-	accused enlarged on bail, influencing material witnesses such as	the

Society’s	staff etc. cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it was submitted that

this	w	a	s a	fit case	, where bail granted by the High Court ought to be

cancelled by this Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF	RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3/

STATE:

9.		Learned	c	ounsel for the State	/official respondents	adopted the

arguments of the	a	ppellants and prayed for cancellation of the bail

granted to the respondent no.1. Learned	c	ounsel drew our attention to

the statements of the clerks employed with the Society.	A	perusal of the

statement of	one	Prashant Savai would show that he work	ed	as a Clerk

with the Society since 2006 to 2014. He stated that the respondent no.1

in the year, 2013 deposited	₹	2,38,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty

Eight Lakhs) with the Society. He received	₹	3,25,000/- (Rupees Three

Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand) as interest from the Society. The same

was paid to the respondent no.	1	by way of cash. No entry was recorded

in the cash	book	and	/or	other books of accounts	maintained by the

Society	. But a note	-	sheet was prepared by the Society. He further stated

that an amount of	₹	3,50,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Fifty Lakhs) was

paid to the respondent no.1 by	a	witness. He also stated that he

prepared receipts of the payment handed over to the respondent no.1 by

way of cash. The Society also prepared a note	-	sheet in which an amount

of	₹	9,69,00,000/- (Nine Crores Sixty Nine Lakhs) is shown	as having

be	en	paid to the respondent no.1.

10.		It was submitted that the statement of	one	Anil Nagdeve would

show that he prepared vouchers and also the Fixed Deposit and made

necessary entries in the cash	-	book; however, no such entries	are

reflected	in the books of accounts of the Society.	Ano	ther witness,		Arun

Kathane has specifically stated that the respondent n	o.1	used to visit the

Society and was in constant touch with the President. 7

11.		It was submitted that the	B	ank	S	tatement	s	of the respondent no.1

came to be seized from	the	Vidarbh Konkan Gramin Bank. Entries of

₹	37,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) and

₹	5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs)	are	shown	as	credited in the account of

the r	espondent	n	o.1. As per the	F	orensic	A	udit	Report,	the	said	figure

matches with the saving account. According to the Forensic Audit	Report,

cash deposit of the amount of	₹	45,28,500/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs

Twenty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred) is also shown in the name of

the	r	espondent	n	o. 1. An amount of	₹	85,75,150/- (Rupees Eighty Five

Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred and Fifty) and	₹	32,90,850/-

(Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty) is

also shown in the name of the wife of the	r	espondent	n	o.1. It is further

noted during investigation that the said amount is not reflected	for the

purposes of	income	-	tax. Similarly,	respondent	n	o.1 and	the Society’s

President	executed		S	ale	D	eed	(s	) and purchased various properties in

cash	. It is averred that	later on	,	they applied for correction in the	S	ale

D	eed by making modification that the amount was inadvertently shown to

be paid in cash but in fact the paymen	t(s)	is	/were	made	through

cheque	(s)	.

12.		It was submitted that a money trail	has been unearthed	between

the	r	espondent	n	o.1 and the Society	.		T	herefore,	it was prayed that	the

privilege of bail granted to him by the High Court be cancelled.

SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENT NO.1/ACCUSED	:

13.		At the outset,	learned	c	ounsel for the respondent no.1 submitted

that the	said	respondent		is innocent and not involved in the alleged

crime.	It was stated that h	e has been falsely implicated by the police. It

was submitted that there is absolutely no evidence	to incriminate

Respondent No.1	in	the subject	-	case. Therefore, in any event, on the

basis of the allegation	s made	, no case	at all, as alleged	vide		Crime

No.217/2019 is made out	against	r	espondent	n	o.1

14.		It was submitted that there is no substantial material on record	,

except disclosure statements of witnesses in police custody, to prove any

kind of agreement	between	r	espondent	n	o.1		and	the main

accused	/President of the Society	. It was pointed out that the main

accused, referred to as the President/Chairman	of the Society	in the

charge	-	sheet, has been released on bail by the High Court	vide	order

dated 22.08.2022	. Referring to this order,		it was urged that the High

Court had	raised doubts on the existence of material evidence relating to

criminal conspiracy and	held that		“	considering the number of witnesses

and voluminous charge sheet there is no point in keeping the applicant in

jail for an uncertain period.	”

15.		It was submitted that the alleged loan has never been transferred

to the respondent n	o.1	. There is no electronic evidence, except mere

statements of	the	three witnesses	. Learned counsel advanced that these

statements	could not be treated as gospel truth. It has not been proved

that	r	espondent n	o.1	was the beneficiary of the alleged scam. Moreover,

there is no	worthwhile	evidence to	suggest	that respondent n	o.1/	his

family purchased the properties to the tune of the alleged loan amount or used the alleged loan amount to purchase any properties. Even

according to the	Forensic A	udit	R	eport,	r	espondent	n	o.1	, including his

family		cumulatively	, had	received no more than	a		₹	1,28,00,000/-

(Rupees One crore Twenty Eight Lakh) loan. Consequently, there are

contradictions regarding alleged receipt of	the	loan amount	in question.

16.		It was further submitted that the authenticity of the aforesaid

Forensic A	udit	R	eport is also under challenge as the

handwriting/specimen of the respondent	no.1	has been sent for	forensic

examination,	report	whereof	is still awaited.	Further	, it was submitted that

r	espondent	n	o.1	was never associated in the affairs of the	S	ociety	and

had never	held any position	in the Society	.

17.		Lastly, it was submitted that	r	espondent	n	o.1	is	a	senior citizen	and

has	complicated age	-	related medical issues	, for which he	is undergoing

treatment due to	the	severity	of the condition(s)	.	Hence	, it is submitted

that there are no chances of	his	absconding	. It was stated that

i	nvestigation is complete and charge	-	sheet has been filed much prior	in

time to the grant of bail. Stating that	no prejudice	has	be	en	caused to the

smooth running of	the	trial so as to invoke the intervention of this Court	, it

was prayed that the instant appeal be dismissed	.

ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION	:

18.		Having given our anxious thought	to the controversy	, we find that

the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge in the	i	mpugned

o	rder under Section 439(1)	2	of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2 “ 439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.—(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct— (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of Section 437, may impose any condition which it considers ne- cessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section; (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor un- less it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice: 11

(hereinafter referred to as the “Code”)	, granting bail to the respondent

n	o.1 cannot be sustained.

19.		Courts while granting bail are required to consider relevant factors

such as	nature of the accusation, role	ascribed to	the accused

concerned	,	possibilities/	chances of tampering with the evidence and	/or

witnesses,	antecedents,	flight risk	et al.	Speaking through Hima Kohli, J.,

the present	coram	in	Ajwar v Waseem	, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974	,

apropos relevant parameters for granting bail, observed:

“
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence,
the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature
of the accusations made against the accused, the
manner in which the crime is alleged to have been
committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed
to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the
accused, the probability of tampering of the 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 and evading the courts of justice and
the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.
(Refer:	Chaman Lal				v.	State of U.P.					3	;	Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar	v.		Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav												(supra)	4	;
Masroo	r	v.		State of Uttar Pradesh						5	;		Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar	v.		Ashis Chatterjee				6	;	Neeru Yadav					v.	State of

Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under sub-section (3) of Section 376 or Section 376-AB or Section 376-DA or Section 376-DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such applica- tion. ” 3 (2004) 7 SCC 525 . 4 (2004) 7 SCC 528 . 5 (2009) 14 SCC 286 . 6 (2010) 14 SCC 496 . 12

Uttar Pradesh				7;		Anil Kumar Yadav		v.		State (NCT of
Delhi)8	;		Mahipal		v.	Rajesh Kumar @ Polia					(supra)	9	.

27.
ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
However, an	unreasoned or perverse order of bail is
always open to interference by the superior Court. If
there are serious allegations against the accused, even
if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an
order can be cancelled by the same Court that has
granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior
Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored
the relevant material available on record or not looked
into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the
society resulting in such an order.						In	P		v.	State of
Madhya Pradesh		(supra)	10	decided by a three judges
bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli,
J)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh
with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to
an accused under Section					439(1)of the			CrPC			in the
following words:

“24. As can be discerned from the above
decisions,		for cancelling bail once granted, the
court must consider whether any supervening
circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the
accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is
no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to
retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of
bail during trial			[Dolat Ram			v.	State of
Haryana,	(1995) 1 SCC 349			:	1995 SCC (Cri)
237]. To put it differently,						in ordinary
circumstances, this Court would be loathe to
interfere with an order passed by the court below
granting bail but if such an order is found to be
illegal or perverse or premised on material that is

7 (2014) 16 SCC 508 . 8 (2018) 12 SCC 129 . 9 (2020) 2 SCC 118 . 10 (2022) 15 SCR 211 . 13

irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to
scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.	”	”

(emphasis supplied)

20. In	State of Haryana v Dharamraj	, 2023 SCC OnLine 1085	,

speaking through one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.), the Court, while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting (anticipatory) bail, discussed and reasoned:

“
warranted.				This Court considered the factors to guide
grant of bail in					Ram Govind Upadhyay				v .	Sudarshan
Singh ,		(2002) 3 SCC 598and						Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar		v .	Rajesh Ranjan,			(2004) 7 SCC 528.
In	Prasanta Kumar Sarkar					v .	Ashis Chatterjee,				(2010)
14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus:

‘9. …	It is trite that this Court does not, normally,
interfere with an order passed by the High Court
granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However,
it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to
exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and
strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid
down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on
the point. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind
while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail.	’

8.		In	Mahipa l	v .	Rajesh Kumar alias Polia,			(2020) 2
SCC 118, this Court opined as under:

‘16.		The considerations that guide the power of an
appellate court in assessing the correctness of an
order granting bail stand on a different footing
from an assessment of an application for the
cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order
granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether
there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the
discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether
the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or
unjustified. On the other hand, an application for
cancellation of bail is generally examined on the
anvil of the existence of supervening
circumstances or violations of the conditions of
bail by a person to whom bail has been granted.
…’

9.	Bhagwan Singh
Depak ,		2023 INSC 761, this Court, in view of								Dolat
Ram	v .	State of Haryana,						(1995) 1 SCC
349 ;	Kashmira Singh					v .	Duman Singh ,		(1996) 4 SCC
693	an	d	X	v .	State of Telangana,			(2018) 16 SCC 511,
held as follows:

‘13.	It is also required to be borne in mind that
when a prayer is made for the cancellation of

grant of bail cogent and overwhelming
circumstances must be present and bail once
granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical
manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it in
conducing to allow fair trial. This proposition
draws support from the Judgment of this Court
in	Daulat Ram		v .	State of Haryana,					(1995) 1 SCC
349, Kashmira Sing						h	v .	Duman Singh		(1996) 4
SCC 693		and	XXX		v .	State of Telangana					(2018)
16 SCC 511.’

10.			Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar
Islands ,	2023 INSC 767, this Court noted that the
principles in			Prasanta Kumar Sarkar		(supra) stood
reiterated in		Jagjeet Singh v.		Ashish Mishra ,		(2022) 9
SCC 321.

11.
elaborately dealt with by 5-Judge Benches
in	Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia						v.	State of Punjab,							(1980) 2
SCC 565					and	Sushila Aggarwal v.						State (NCT of
Delhi),		(2020) 5 SCC 1.							Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre			v.	S	tate of Maharashtra,					(2011) 1 SCC 694						is
worthy of mention in this context, despite its partial
overruling in						Sushila Aggarwal					(supra).			We are
cognizant that liberty is not to be interfered with easily.
More so, when an order of									pre-arrest				bail already
stands granted by the High Court.

12.	Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is
to be exercised with judicial discretion. The factors
illustrated by this Court through its pronouncements
are illustrative, and not exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the
fate of each case turns on its own facts and merits.		”

(emphasis supplied) 16

21. In	Ajwar	(	supra	), this Court also examined the considerations for

setting aside bail orders in terms below:

“
Court for setting aside the bail order on an application
being moved by the aggrieved party include any
supervening circumstances that may have occurred
after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the
accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the
accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial,
any instance of threats being extended to the
witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the
accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner.
We may add that this list is only illustrative and not
exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that
at the stage of granting bail, only a	prima facie	case
needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to
the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the
accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that
the bail order should reveal the factors that have been
considered by the Court for granting relief to the
accused.

29.			11
of this Court, has observed that				the power to grant bail
under Section	439	Cr. P.C .	is of wide amplitude and
the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may
be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while
deciding an application for bail. But this discretion is
not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due
application of judicial mind following well established
principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be
slow to interfere with the order where bail has been
granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such
an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly
irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well
within its power to set aside and cancel the bail.					(Also

11 (2022) 9 SCC 321 . 17

refer:			Puran				v.	Ram Bilas					12	;	Narendra K. Amin
(Dr.)		v.			State of Gujarat1				3	)	”

(emphasis supplied)

22.	The learned Single Judge	, in the	impugned	o	rder	, has simply

proceeded	on the	premis	e that there were only allegations made by

some persons against the	r	espondent	n	o.1 and he was not a member of

the	S	ociety which had committed such financial irregularities. Moreover,

we find that the learned Single Judge	, whilst noting that “	no positive

finding need be recorded on the sufficiency of the said material to establish conspiracy, which issue will be addressed by the trial Court,

after the evidence is adduced	”,	has without any basis	thought it fit to

record that in his “	prima facie opinion, it is extremely debatable whether

such material is sufficient to establish conspiracy.	”

2	3	.		The i	mpugned	o	rder	goes on to state that	r	espondent	n	o.1 was not

involved in the affairs of the	S	ociety	n	or was	he	responsible for the

irregularities alleged	. At the present stage, where the charge-sheet

stands filed, it emerges that there is some material indicative of the

involvement of	r	espondent	n	o.1	in the withdrawal o	f	₹	9,00,00,000/-

(Rupees Nine Crores),	based on	the records	and	cash	-	book entries and

12 (2001) 9 SCC 338 . 13 (2008) 13 SCC 584 . 18

other book of accounts though he had invest	ed amounts	only	to the tune

of	about	₹	2,38,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs)	. E	ven

the	F	orensic	Audit R	eport	exhibits material to this effect	.

2	4	.		We bear in mind the submission	that	r	espondent	n	o.1 was a close

associate of the President of the	Society with		regular	business	/other

dealings	between the two	.	I	nvestigation	also indicates	that out of the

mon	ies	withdrawn from the	Society’s	account by the respondent	n	o.1,

investments	were later		made in	property in the name of his relatives	.

Further,	the High Court	has	completely lost	sight of the fact that the

deposit	s	in	/to	the	S	ociety	were	made by people having	meagre	earnings

without anything else to fall back	up	on	. Tentatively speaking, it seems

that the President of the Society	systematically siphoned off	these funds,

with the aid of	other office-bearers as also	through	r	espondent	n	o.1.	We

consciously refrain from elaborately discussing/detailing the evidence or

our views thereon following the	dicta	in	Niranjan Singh v Prabhakar

Rajaram Kharote	, (1980) 2 SCC 559	;	Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State

of Maharashtra	, (2012) 8 SCC 795	and	Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi

v State of Gujarat	, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 560


2	5	.		I	n c	ases where the allegations coupled with	the materials brought

on record by the investigation and in the nature of economic offence 19

affecting a large number of people		reveal the active role of the accused

seeking anticipatory or regular bail, it would be fit for the Court granting such bail to impose appropriately strict and additional conditions. In the present case, even that has not been done as the High Court has

imposed usual conditions	simpliciter	:

“8.
with Crime 217/2019, registered with Police Station
Kotwali, Nagpur, for offences punishable under
sections 409, 420, 467, 478, 471, 120-B of Indian
Penal Code, Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection
of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments)
Act, on		executing PR bond of Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees
Sixteen Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like
amount	.

9.	The applicant	shall attend Economic Offences
Wing, Nagpur as and when required by the
Investigating Officer		.

10.	The applicant	shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any attempt to influence the witnesses or otherwise
tamper with the evidence			.

11.	The applicant	shall not leave the country without
the permission of the trial Court			.	”

(emphasis supplied)

26.		The		High Court, we have no hesitation in saying so, erred in law.

Ergo	,	for reasons recorded above and upon circumspect	consideration	of

the	attendant	facts and circumstances	,	we hold that the discretion

20 exercised by the learned Single Judge of the High Court to grant bail to

the r	espondent	n	o.1 was not in tune with the principles that

conventionally govern exercise of such power, a plurality of which stand

enunciated in the case-law	supra	. Moreover, though	r	espondent	n	o.1 had

already suffered incarceration for a period of about six months at the time when bail was granted, yet in view of the nature of the alleged offence, his release on bail can seriously lead to dissipation of the properties where investments have allegedly been made out of Society funds. At the end of the day, the interests of the victims of the scam have also to be factored in.

2	7	.		Accordingly, th	e	appeal succeeds. The	i	mpugned	o	rder	stands set

aside	.	R	espondent	N	o.1 is directed to surrender within	a period of	t	hree

weeks from today, failing which the trial Court shall proceed in

accordance with law.	W	e clarify that the observations made	here	in	above

are limited	to the aspect of testing the legality of	the	impugned	o	rder	.

They shall not be treated as definitive/conclusive regarding	r	espondent

n	o.1 or any other accused.		The	t	rial Court	in seisin	shall proceed

uninfluenced and in accordance with law	.	Given the peculiar

circumstances, where bail is being cancelled after a period of almost 3 years, it is deemed appropriate to grant liberty to the respondent no.1 to 21

apply for bail	at a later	period		or	in the event of	a change in

circumstances. Needless to state, such application, if and when preferred, shall be considered on its own merits, without being prejudiced

by the instant judgment	.	The authorities concerned are directed to render

appropriate care and assistance as regards the medical condition of the

r	espondent	n	o.1.

			..…………………..................…..J.
						[HIMA KOHLI]


			..…………………..................…..J.
				[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

NEW DELHI
AUGUST 28, 2024