Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bail – The case of the prosecution is that one accused viz. K (President of a Society), in connivance with the co-accused, misappropriated an amount of ₹79,54,26,963/- – Further case of the prosecution that respondent no.1 is a co-conspirator and a close friend of the alleged mastermind K – It was stated in the charge-sheet that respondent no.1 was paid an amount of ₹9,69,28,500/which was withdrawn from the Society and paid to him as financial assistance – Thereafter, respondent no.1 purchased five immovable properties in name of K – During investigation, respondent no.1 was arrested – However, the High Court released him on bail – Correctness:
Held: The Courts while granting bail 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 etc. – The Single Judge of the High Court, in the impugned order, has simply proceeded on the premise that there were only allegations made by some persons against the respondent no.1 and he was not a member of the Society which had committed such financial irregularities – The impugned order goes on to state that respondent no.1 was not involved in the affairs of the Society nor was he responsible for the irregularities alleged – At the present stage, where the charge-sheet stands filed, it emerges that there is some material indicative of the involvement of respondent no.1 in the withdrawal of ₹9,00,00,000/-, based on the records and cashbook entries and other book of accounts though he had invested amounts only to the tune of about ₹2,38,00,000/- – Even the Forensic Audit Report exhibits material to this effect – Investigation also indicates that out of the monies withdrawn from the Society’s account by the respondent no.1, investments were later made in property in the name of his relatives – Further, the High Court has 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 no.1 – Upon circumspect consideration of the attendant facts and circumstances, the discretion exercised by the 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 – Thus, the impugned order u/s. 439(1), CrPC granting bail to the respondent no.1 cannot be sustained. [Paras 18, 19, 22, 26]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.