Supreme Court Cancels Bail After 3 Years In Economic Offence Case, Says Interest Of Scam Victims Must Be Protected

In a peculiar case, the Supreme Court on August 28 cancelled the bail of an accused after almost 3 years of his release in connection with offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.Brief factsIn this case, respondent no.1 in question was enlarged on bail by the Bombay High Court on October 13, 2021. The High Court reasoned there that respondent no. 1 is not a member of the Society and he is incriminated based on the allegations made by some appellants, which does not indicate that there is sufficient material to establish his complicity. As per brief facts, respondent no. 1 in connivance with one accused, who is the President of Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society Limited, misappropriated Rs.79, 54, 26, 963. Further, the deposits of 798 depositors aggregating Rs. 29, 06, 18, 748 were also misappropriated.It is also alleged that respondent no. 1 deposited Rs. 2,38,39,071 with the Society but withdrew Rs 9,69,28,500/. And that he purchased properties in the name of the President of the Society.The criminal appeal has been filed against the order by some depositors before the Supreme Court.What did the Supreme Court find?A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah found that the exercise of discretion in granting bail under Section 439 (Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court cannot be sustained. Courts while granting bail must consider relevant facts The Court stated that while exercising Section 439 powers, the Courts must consider the nature of the accusation, role ascribed to the accused concerned, possibilities or chance of tempering with evidence, antecedents, flight risks etc. "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."It referred to a recent judgment Ajwar v Waseem (2024), in which the court speaking through Justice Kohli held: "26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be 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." (as underlined by court).The judgment further notes: "27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, 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."It adds: "In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) 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 irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.""On the cancellation of the bail, the judgment in Ajwar stated: "28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate 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...

Supreme Court Cancels Bail After 3 Years In Economic Offence Case, Says Interest Of Scam Victims Must Be Protected

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Cancels Bail After 3 Years In Economic Offence Case, Says Interest Of Scam Victims Must Be Protected

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers