top of page
Search
Writer's pictureLegal Soch Foundation
2 min read

Supreme Court Cancels Bail After 3 Years, Emphasizes Protecting Scam Victims' Interests

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India on August 28, 2024, cancelled the bail of an accused nearly three years after his release in a case involving serious economic offences. The accused, implicated under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, was originally granted bail by the Bombay High Court on October 13, 2021.


The case revolves around the respondent, identified as respondent no. 1, who, in connivance with another accused, the President of Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society Limited, allegedly misappropriated funds amounting to ₹79.54 crores. It was further alleged that deposits from 798 depositors, aggregating ₹29.06 crores, were also misappropriated. The respondent, who had deposited ₹2.38 crores with the Society, withdrew a substantial sum of ₹9.69 crores and allegedly acquired properties in the President's name.


Following the Bombay High Court's bail order, a criminal appeal was filed by some depositors before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision. A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah scrutinized the High Court's discretion in granting bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).


The Supreme Court emphasized that while exercising the special powers under Section 439 CrPC, courts must rigorously consider several factors, including the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, the possibility of evidence tampering, the accused's antecedents, and the flight risk. The Court found that the High Court's decision did not align with these principles, particularly given the serious nature of the offence and the risk of dissipation of the misappropriated properties.


Consequently, the Supreme Court canceled the bail, underscoring the necessity of safeguarding the interests of the scam victims.


Case Details:

Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. v. Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 3573 of 2024.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 619






Recent Posts

See All

Comments

bottom of page