We Do Not Appreciate Such Casual Averments: SC Dismisses Review Petition Challenging Judgment Cancelling Bail In Misappropriation Of Funds Case
|Supreme Court dismissed a review petition by an accused seeking review of the judgment that set aside his bail, while observing that it did not appreciate casual averments made by the accused.
The Court in August, 2024 cancelled the bail granted to the accused who was convicted of misappropriation of funds under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (the Act). The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal, which was preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, by which the accused was released on bail.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held, “We do not appreciate the casual averment to the effect that once bail granted by the Hon’ble High Court is cancelled by this Hon’ble Court, neither the Learned Trial Court nor the Hon’ble 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 Court noted that the accused was dissatisfied with his understanding that the observations in the judgment of which review was sought were incorrect and contrary to the record. It was claimed that ‘later period’ or ‘change in circumstances’ were not been specified in the judgment. It was also submitted that all other co-accused were released on bail.
The accused also claimed to have been “singled out.” To this effect, the Court reiterated its decision in Sanjay Dubey v State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was held, “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.”
Consequently, the Court remarked, “The facts of every case vary and are to be judged in their unique perspective. Grant of bail to co-accused would not ipso facto entitle the instant Petitioner to the same. Moreover, the record indicates that the Petitioner was arrested on 28.04.2021 and granted bail by the High Court on 13.10.2021. Hence, the Petitioner was incarcerated for about 6 months, nay, 5 ½ months only. This cannot be taken as ‘incarceration for a significant period of time’ as sought to be projected by the Petitioner.”
The Bench stated, “The judgment of which review is sought has considered the role ascribed to the Petitioner, including the version in the Chargesheet. To allay the Petitioner’s apprehensions, authorities concerned have been directed to render appropriate care and assistance apropos his medical condition.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition.
Cause Title: Vitthal Damuji Meher v. Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 785)