LexM.M. COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus J.P. BHIMANI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 11 S.C.R. 748 A M.M. COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ~ V. J.P. BHIMANI & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1374 of 2009) B JULY 31, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] BAIL: c Bank-scam - Order of High Court granting bail to one of the accused challenged - HELD: High Court while enlarging the accused on bail imposed stringent conditions which were not contravened by accused - Directions of the High Court as regards payment of the amount have been substantially D complied with by the accused - In the absence of any material brought on record to show that accused has not complied with conditions imposed on him by High Court and, further, the order releasing him on bail having been passed in 2004, it is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 E of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. A large scale scam and defalcation of public money amounting to crores of rupees deposited in the appellant bank was uearthed. The Bank Chairman, Managing Director, some other officers of the bank, some investors F and businessmen including respondent no. 1 were stated to have committed the fraud on the bank. An FIR for commission of offences punishable ulss 406, 409, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B was filed against respondent no. 1 and others. The application for bail of respondent no. 1 G was rejected by the Sessions Judge, but was allowed by the High Court imposing certain conditions and directing respondent no. 1 to pay certain amounts. In the instant appeal filed by the Bank, it was H 748 M.M. COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. J.P. BHIMANI & 749 ANR. ,.. ) contended for the appellant that the High Court erred in A releasing respondent no. 1 on bail as it failed to take into consideration that the total amount involved in the scam was Rs.1701- crores and even keeping in view the offer made by respondent no. 1, he should be directed to pay . at least Rs.41 crores. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court ' HELD: 1.1. The power of the superior courts to enlarge an accused on bail is not in dispute. The High c Court while enlarging respondent no. 1 on bail, taking into consideration the materials on record, had issued stringent conditions. It is not the case of the appellant that such conditions have been contravened by respondent no.1; instead he has substantively complied with the directions of the High Court is also not in D dispute. [Para 10] [759-C-E] 1.2. The plea of the appellant-Bank that respondent no. 1 should be directed to pay at least a sum of Rs.41 crores cannot be accepted. Subject matter of the first E information report was only Rs.8 crores. Other complaint petitions as also civil litigation are pending. Indisputably, respondent no. 1 substantively complied with the directions issued by the High Court. In the absence of any material brought on record to show that respondent F no. 1 has not complied with the conditions imposed on him by the High Court, impugned order cannot be interfered with. Furthermore, the impugned order having been passed in the year 2004, it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article G 136 of the Constitution of India. [Para 8, 11 and 12] [758- G-H; 759-E-G] Fida Hussain Bohra vs. The State of Maharashtra 2009(3) SCALE 419; Ramathal & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police & Anr. 2009(3) SCALE 550 and Glaskasden Grace & Ors. H 750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 11 S.C.R. A Vs. Inspector of Police & Anr. 2009(3) SCALE 554, referred • to. Case Law Reference: 2009(3) SCALE 419 referred to para 11 B 2009(3) SCALE 550 referred to ·para 11 2009(3) SCALE 554 referred to para 11 CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal c No. 1374 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 9.3.2004 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9584 of 2003. D R.F. Nariman, Gaurav Goel, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala and E.C. Agrawala for the Appellant. l.H. Syed, Huzefa Ahmadi, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Priduman, Pinky, Jesal, K. Enatoli Serna (for Hemantika Wahi) E for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. F 2. Appellant-Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank • Ltd. (the bank) is a banking organisation incorporated and registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. It is now under a reconstruction scheme as contemplated by Section 15(b) of the Multi State Cooper
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.