The Supreme Court in the case Samsul Alam Khan Amit Sharma Vs Union Of India observed that this court is not inclined in granting bails in cases which pertains to economic offences which are especially when many of the depositors have been swindled. The bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice MM Sundresh in the case observed and has highlighted that suppose you have taken away money from thousands of people, swindled. And you are saying to please grant him anticipatory bail of regardless being the plight of the victims. Thus, they need to beg, borrow and steal from others and the same is not acceptable. In the present case, the Bench was hearing a plea wherein seeking anticipatory bail by one Samsul Alam Khan. The court is informed by Senior Advocate R Basant appearing for the petitioner that, he had offered to deposit 9 lakhs in the lower court. Therefore, the counsel also relied on the case Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation. After going through the judgement, the bench stated that, will this be an economic offence or not? Adding to it, Basant replied that same being an offence falling under section 420 [Cheating] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Further, it has been questioned by the bench that Taking money from depositors, will it be an economic offence under the RBI Act or the SEBI Act,?. Adding to which, Basant replied that every offence where money is involved is not a financial offence. It has further been expressed by the court that the said court would grant bail only if the “amount” is not high. The court stated that if the involvement is of a lesser sum, the court is inclined to grant bail and if there are large number of people involved, then this court is not inclined. We are very clear on it. It has further been argued by Basant, We can go by the Chargesheet. But it says 9 lakhs, how is the other side going to expand that?. The bench observed and has directed the petitioner for depositing the amount with the Trial Court in two weeks while issuing notice in the matter. The court also added that the petitioner is to be released on interim bail with subject to him appearing before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the court listed the matter to be next heard on February 27