The Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to an accused involved in a ₹79 crore financial fraud case by the Bombay High Court. The accused, allegedly involved in a conspiracy with the President of Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society, was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The Court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the gravity of the accusations and the potential for the accused to tamper with evidence. The order emphasized that the exercise of discretion in granting bail must be judicious, especially in cases involving serious criminal offenses.

1. Background of the Case:

The appeal arose from a High Court order dated 13.10.2021, which granted bail to the accused (Respondent No.1) involved in a financial fraud case amounting to ₹79,54,26,963/-. The accused was arrested in connection with Crime No.217/2019 registered under various sections of the IPC and the MPID Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, in connivance with the co-accused, misappropriated funds from depositors of Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society.

2. Submissions by the Appellants:

The appellants, who were some of the depositors, argued that the High Court failed to appreciate the role of the accused, who allegedly benefited significantly from the fraud. They contended that the bail granted to the accused should be canceled due to the serious nature of the offense and the risk of the accused influencing witnesses.

3. Submissions by the State:

The State supported the appellants' arguments, highlighting statements from witnesses and forensic audit reports that indicated the accused's involvement in the financial irregularities. The State argued that the accused was closely associated with the main perpetrator and had received significant financial benefits from the scam.

4. Submissions by Respondent No.1:

The accused denied any involvement in the crime, claiming that there was no substantial evidence against him. He argued that he had been falsely implicated and that the bail should not be canceled as the investigation was complete and there was no risk of him absconding.

5. Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning:

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions, held that the High Court's order granting bail was unsustainable. The Court emphasized that while granting bail, courts must consider factors such as the nature of the accusations, the role of the accused, the potential for tampering with evidence, and the overall impact on society. The Court found that the High Court failed to appropriately weigh these factors and therefore set aside the bail order.

6. Conclusion:

The Supreme Court canceled the bail granted to the accused, underscoring the importance of a judicious exercise of discretion in bail matters, particularly in cases involving serious criminal offenses. The Court reiterated that bail once granted should not be canceled mechanically, but it can be revoked if found to be based on irrelevant or insufficient material.