Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that the facts of every criminal case vary and are to be judged in their unique perspective and grant of bail to co-accused would not ipso facto entitle an accused to a similar relief.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed a review petition filed by the respondent against the judgment of August 28, 2024 in a case titled Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors Vs Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors by which the court set aside the grant of bail to Meher and directed him to surrender within three weeks.

Keeping the jurisdictional principles of review in mind, the bench noted that the review petition exhibited that the petitioner was dissatisfied on his understanding that: observations in Para 26 of the judgment of which review was sought were incorrect and contrary to the record; ‘later period’ or ‘change in circumstances’ had not been specified; relevant precedents had not been considered; ‘Bail is the Rule, Jail is the exception’ (sic) had been ignored; all other arrested accused had been released on bail; etcetera.

To a question as to why the petitioner has been ‘singled out’, the bench said, "We need only point towards the well-accepted dicta, reiterated in Sanjay Dubey Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) which stated it is too well-settled that judgments are not to be read as Euclid's theorems; they are not to be construed as statutes, and; specific cases are authorities only for what they actually decide".   

The court also pointed out that the record indicated that the petitioner was arrested on April 28, 2021 and granted bail by the High Court on October 13, 2021. 

Hence, the petitioner was incarcerated for about 6 months, nay, 5 ½ months only, it noted. 

"This cannot be taken as ‘incarceration for a significant period of time’ as sought to be projected by the petitioner by relying on Union of India Vs K A Najeeb, (2021). Further, a reading of the judgment of August 28, 2024 makes it clear that the court was conscious of the peculiarities of the case, as it was cancelling bail after almost three years, and that Charge Sheet had been filed," the court said.

The bench also noted the judgment of which review was sought had considered the role ascribed to the petitioner, including the version in the Charge sheet. To allay his apprehensions, authorities concerned had been directed to render appropriate care and assistance apropos his medical condition.   

The court also pointed out that the calming caveat, that a bail application preferred afresh by the petitioner shall be considered on its own merits, without prejudice to the cancellation of bail so ordered, also found place in the judgment of August 28, 2024.   

In its order, the bench said, "We do not appreciate the casual averment to the effect that ‘once bail granted by the High Court is cancelled by this Court, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court would grant bail to the review petitioner.’ The High Court, as also the Trial Court in seisin, have been specifically permitted by this court to consider the petitioner’s bail application, if and when preferred, ‘at a later period or in the event of a change in circumstances’. The discretion in this context, albeit, to be exercised in accordance with law, of the court(s) below is left untouched."

The court clarified nevertheless, if the petitioner chooses to so apply, while considering such bail plea, the court concerned need not feel inhibited by observations, if any, against him in the judgment, regard being had to all due factors.  

The bench held a case for review was not discernible and accordingly dismissed the review petition.

It also rejected the application for an open court hearing. The bench also found the application filed for extension of time for surrender had become infructuous.

On August 28, 2024, the apex court cancelled the bail of the petitioner on an appeal filed by some of the depositors, who purportedly fell victim to Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society Limited, against the single judge bench order of October 13, 2021.

The petitioner was alleged to be involved in siphoning off funds to the tune of crores of rupees from a cooperative society in connivance with other accused.

The Supreme Court had then said that the court is required to impose appropriately strict and additional conditions in granting bail to an accused in a case of economic offences which affected a large number of people.

Case Title: Vithal Damuji Meher Vs Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors