9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order 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 respondent no.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 was 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 counsel for the State/official respondents adopted the arguments of the appellants and prayed for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent no.1. Learned counsel 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 worked as a Clerk with the Society since 2006 to 2014. He stated that the respondent no.1 in the year, 2013 deposited Rs.2,38,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs) with the Society. He received Rs.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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court be cancelled. SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENT NO.1/ACCUSED: 13. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the said respondent is innocent and not involved in the alleged crime. It was stated that he 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 allegations made, no case at all, as alleged vide Crime No.217/2019 is made out against respondent no.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 respondent no.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 poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poses 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 unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice: 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 application." of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), granting bail to the respondent no.1 cannot be sustained. 19. Courts while granting bail are required to consider r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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: "7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide grant of bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Singh v . Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and XXX v . State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511.' 10. In XXX v . 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. The contours of anticipatory bail have been 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. State 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingle Judge, in the impugned order, has simply proceeded on the premise that there were only allegations made by some persons against the respondent no.1 and he was not a member of the Society 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." 23. The impugned order goes on to state that respondent no.1 was not involved in the affairs of the Society nor 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 respondent no.1 in the withdrawal of Rs.9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores), based on the records and cash-book entries and other book of accounts though he had invested amounts only to the tune of about Rs.2,38,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 exercised by the learned Single Judge of the High Court to grant bail to the respondent no.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 respondent no.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. 27. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order stands set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to surrender within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. We clarify that the observations made hereinabove are limited to the aspect of testing the legality of the impugned order. They sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
