Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

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