Strict conditions for bail must be imposed where investigation reveals active role of accused in economic offence affecting the masses: SC

Supreme Court: While considering that instant appeal challenging the impugned order of Bombay High Court, wherein the Single Judge Bench had granted bail to the respondent for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act); the Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah*, JJ., stated that, “In cases where the allegations and materials brought on record by the investigation and are in the nature of an economic offence 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 to impose appropriately strict and additional conditions while granting such bail”.

Background and Contentions: The accused, who was the President of Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”) in connivance with the co-accused, misappropriated an amount of Rs 79,54,26,963. The chargesheet and the statements of 798 depositors further revealed that their deposits aggregating Rs 29,06,18,748 were not returned and the amount was misappropriated.

The instant appeal has been filed by some of the depositors, who purportedly fell victim to this misappropriation. The prosecution further narrated that Respondent- 1 was the co-conspirator and friend of the alleged mastermind. During investigation, Respondent-1 was arrested on 28-4-2021. Bombay High Court vide the impugned order, had released him on bail noting that the material on record is not sufficient to establish Respondent-1’s complicity.

Counsels for the appellants submitted that the High Court did not correctly appreciate the role of Respondent-1 as stated in the chargesheet. The counsels drew the Court’s attention towards the forensic audit report that wherein it had been revealed that the President of the Society colluded with Respondent-1 and relatives, invested Rs 2,38,39,071 against which he was given financial assistance of Rs 9,69,28,500, which was not refunded. Furthermore, the High Court, in the impugned order, did not consider the statements of the Society’s staff recorded during investigation.

The State submitted that a money trail had been unearthed between the Respondent-1 and the Society. Therefore, it was prayed that the privilege of bail granted to him by the High Court be cancelled.

Per contra, counsels for Respondent-1 stated that there is no substantial material on record, except disclosure statements of witnesses in police custody, to prove any kind of agreement between him and the main accused/President of the Society. The counsels also raised doubts over the authenticity of the forensic audit report and submitted that respondent no.1 is a senior citizen and has complicated age-related medical issues, for which he is undergoing treatment. Stating that no prejudice has been caused to the smooth running of the trial to invoke the intervention of the Supreme Court, it was prayed that the instant appeal be dismissed.

Court’s Assessment:

Perusing the facts and contentions raised in the matter and relying on relevant precedents, the Court stated that while granting bail, Courts 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.

Examining the impugned order, the Court pointed out that the Single Judge simply proceeded on the premise that only some persons made allegations against Respondent-1, and he was not a member of the Society which had committed such financial irregularities. The Court further found that the Single Judge, while noting that no positive finding needs be recorded on the sufficiency of the said material to establish conspiracy, had 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.”

The Court further pointed out that the impugned order goes on to state that Respondent-1 was not involved in the affairs of the Society nor was he responsible for the irregularities alleged. However, it emerged from the chargesheet that there was some material indicative of the involvement of Respondent-1 in the withdrawal of Rs 9,00,00,000 (Nine Crores), based on the records and cash-book entries and other book of accounts, though he had invested only Rs 2,38,00,000.

Taking note of the submission that Respondent-1 was a close associate of the main accused i.e., the President of the Society and investigation also indicated that out of the monies withdrawn from the Society’s account by Respondent-1 was used to make investments in property in the name of his relatives, the Court pointed out that the Single Judge Bench completely lost sight of the fact that the deposits in/to the Society were made by people having meagre earnings without anything else to fall back upon. “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 Respondent-1”.

The Court further stated the strict conditions must be imposed in cases of economic offences affecting many people, but the same was not done in the impugned order as the High Court had imposed usual conditions simpliciter. Therefore, the Court found that the Single Judge Bench of Bombay High Court erred in law while granting bail via the impugned order.

The Court held that the discretion exercised by the Single Judge of Bombay High Court to grant bail to Respondent-1, was not in tune with the principles that conventionally govern exercise of such power. It was further pointed out that though Respondent- 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”.

Hence, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed Respondent-1 to surrender within three weeks. The Court further decided that given the peculiar circumstances, where bail has been cancelled after a period of almost 3 years, it was deemed appropriate to grant liberty to Respondent- 1 to apply for bail at a later period or in the event of a change in circumstances.

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE