2024 (8) TMI 1269 - SC - Indian Laws

Legality of the High Court's order granting bail to respondent no.1 - High Court vide the Impugned Order has released him on bail noting that the material on record is not sufficient to establish his complicity - HELD THAT - The High Court, there are no hesitation in saying so, erred in law. Ergo, for reasons recorded above and upon circumspect consideration of the attendant facts and circumstances, we hold that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge of the High Court to grant bail to the respondent no.1 was not in tune with the principles that conventionally govern exercise of such power, a plurality of which stand enunciated in the case-law supra. Moreover, though respondent no.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. The impugned order stands set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to surrender within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's order granting bail to respondent no.1.
2. Sufficiency of evidence against respondent no.1.
3. Potential influence on witnesses and tampering with evidence.
4. Respondent no.1's medical condition and its impact on bail considerations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Order Granting Bail to Respondent No.1:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the exercise of discretion by the High Court under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court emphasized that while granting bail, courts must consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, possibilities of tampering with evidence, antecedents, and flight risk. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its discretion by inadequately addressing these factors. The High Court's order was deemed unsustainable as it was based on the premise that there were only allegations against respondent no.1 without substantial material evidence. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to impose appropriately strict conditions while granting bail.

2. Sufficiency of Evidence Against Respondent No.1:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the charge-sheet and the Forensic Audit Report indicated respondent no.1's involvement in the withdrawal of significant funds from the Society. The evidence suggested that respondent no.1 had invested amounts significantly lower than what he withdrew, indicating potential misappropriation. The Court noted that respondent no.1 was a close associate of the Society's President and had regular dealings, which further implicated him in the financial irregularities. The High Court's assessment that there was insufficient material to establish conspiracy was found to be premature and without basis.

3. Potential Influence on Witnesses and Tampering with Evidence:
The appellants and the State argued that the High Court overlooked the risk of respondent no.1 influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence. Statements from the Society's staff and the Forensic Audit Report indicated respondent no.1's involvement in irregular transactions. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court did not adequately consider the potential for respondent no.1 to influence material witnesses or tamper with evidence, which is a critical factor in bail considerations.

4. Respondent No.1's Medical Condition and Its Impact on Bail Considerations:
Respondent no.1's counsel argued that he was a senior citizen with severe medical issues, suggesting that his health condition should be a factor in granting bail. The Supreme Court acknowledged the medical condition but emphasized that the nature of the alleged offence and the potential impact on the victims of the scam outweighed this consideration. The Court directed that appropriate care and assistance be provided for respondent no.1's medical condition while he is in custody.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order granting bail to respondent no.1 was not in accordance with established legal principles. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. Respondent no.1 was directed to surrender within three weeks, with the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations were limited to the legality of the bail order and should not influence the trial Court's proceedings. Respondent no.1 was granted liberty to apply for bail at a later stage, considering any change in circumstances.

← Previous Next →