MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS. versus VITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 753 · Decided: 28-08-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 753 : 2024 INSC 636
Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. 
v. 
Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3573 of 2024)
28 August 2024
[Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Respondent no.1 was released on bail by the High Court for offences 
punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of 
the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection 
of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
Headnotes†
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which was withdrawn from the Society and paid to him as 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 
* Author
754
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
material indicative of the involvement of respondent no.1 in the 
withdrawal of ₹9,00,00,000/-, based on the records and cash-
book 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]
Case Law Cited
Ajwar v. Waseem [2024] 5 SCR 575 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974; 
State of Haryana v. Dharamraj [2023] 11 SCR 705 : 2023 SCC 
OnLine 1085 – relied on.
Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote [1980] 3 SCR 15 : 
(1980) 2 SCC 559; Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 
[2012] 8 SCR 270 : (2012) 8 SCC 795; Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi 
v. State of Gujarat [2023] 4 SCR 239 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 
560 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860;  Maharashtra 
Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) 
Act, 1999.
List of Keywords
Bail; Grant of bail; Rejection of bail; Misappropriation of funds; 
Financial irregularities; Conspiracy; Possibilities/chances of 
tampering with the evidence and/or witnesses; Nature of 
accusations; Role of accused; Supervening circumstances; 
Economic offence.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
755
Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. v. Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3573 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2021 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in CRLA (BA) No. 867 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Mrinal G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.