Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in ₹79 Crore Scam, Slams High Court for “Perverse” Discretion in Economic Offense Case

02 September 2024 11:13 AM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court of India has cancelled the bail granted by the Bombay High Court to an accused involved in a multi-crore financial scam concerning Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, criticized the High Court for exercising its discretion improperly, noting that the High Court’s order was not in alignment with established legal principles governing the grant of bail.

The case revolves around a financial scam where Khemchand Meharkure, President of Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society, allegedly misappropriated over ₹79.54 crores, siphoning off funds from deposits made by approximately 798 depositors. The respondent, Vitthal Damuji Meher, was accused of being a close associate and co-conspirator of Meharkure, allegedly receiving significant amounts of money from the Society and investing in properties.

Following his arrest on April 28, 2021, Meher was granted bail by the High Court on October 13, 2021. However, the Supreme Court’s recent judgment overturns this decision, citing the High Court’s failure to adequately consider the gravity of the accusations and the potential risks to the ongoing investigation and trial.

Judicial Discretion in Bail Matters: The Supreme Court stressed the need for careful judicial discretion when granting bail in serious criminal offenses. It highlighted that courts must consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, and the potential for tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The bench stated, “Bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner, but an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior Court”.

Critique of the High Court’s Order: The Supreme Court found the High Court’s reasoning flawed and the exercise of its discretion in granting bail to be “perverse.” The bench noted that the High Court had inappropriately dismissed the significance of the evidence presented against Meher, including financial records and forensic audits indicating his involvement in the misappropriation of funds. The Court observed that the High Court’s opinion that the material was insufficient to establish a conspiracy was premature and unfounded.

Implications of Bail on the Victims: The Court also underscored the impact of the scam on the depositors, many of whom were individuals of modest means. The judgment emphasized that the interests of the victims must be a priority in such cases, and the premature release of an accused could jeopardize the recovery of misappropriated funds and the overall integrity of the trial process.

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the critical role of judicial prudence in bail decisions, especially in cases involving serious economic offenses with widespread impact. By cancelling the bail granted to Vitthal Damuji Meher, the Court has sent a clear message regarding the importance of upholding justice for the victims of financial crimes. The decision also allows for Meher to apply for bail again if circumstances change, ensuring that his rights are preserved while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

Date of Decision: August 28, 2024.

Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. V. Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors.

Latest Legal News