High Court orders granting anticipatory bail to accused who evaded process set aside; accused directed to surrender within one week

A bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard appeals filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) challenging multiple High Court orders that granted anticipatory bail to several accused in criminal complaint COMA/5/2019 pending before the Special Judge, Gurugram. The appeals raised the question whether accused who avoided service of summons/warrants and against whom proclamation proceedings were initiated were nonetheless entitled to anticipatory bail in serious economic offence proceedings arising from the SFIO investigation.

The Court allowed the SFIO appeals in respect of thirteen matters and set aside the impugned High Court orders dated 29.03.2023 and 20.04.2023 which had granted anticipatory bail to various accused who had evaded process or against whom non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings had been issued. The Court observed that economic offences “constitute a class apart” and that anticipatory bail is an “extraordinary” remedy which must be exercised sparingly, particularly where the accused had concealed themselves and obstructed execution of process. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the above settled legal position, it is no more res integra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country. The law aids only the abiding and certainly not its resistants. When after the investigation, a chargesheet is submitted in the court, or in a complaint case, summons or warrant is issued to a person, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. If he is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the Court taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious economic offences or heinous offences.” The Court also quoted precedent: “Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result.”

Background The Ministry of Corporate Affairs directed SFIO to investigate affairs of 125 Adarsh Group companies and additional entities. SFIO submitted an investigation report on 09.05.2019 and filed Criminal Complaint COMA/5/2019 on 18.05.2019 impleading 181 accused for alleged offences under the Companies Act (including Section 447) and the IPC, arising from alleged illegal loans, forged documents and siphoning of funds from Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Limited. The Special Court, Gurugram took cognizance on 03.06.2019 and issued bailable warrants that, it found, remained unexecuted as many accused “hid themselves” or were not available at addresses furnished during investigation. The Special Court thereafter issued non-bailable warrants and, on 25.03.2022, initiated proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The SFIO challenged numerous High Court orders which subsequently granted anticipatory bail to several accused in March–April 2023.

The High Court orders did not advert to the mandatory conditions in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act (restrictive bail regime for offences under Section 447) nor to the respondents’ conduct of avoiding process. Applying settled precedents (including Inder Mohan Goswami, P. Chidambaram, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and others), the Supreme Court held anticipatory bail to be an extraordinary remedy which should not be granted where accused had “continuously, defied orders and kept absconding” or where proclamation/ non-bailable warrants had been issued. The Court set aside the High Court orders in the listed appeals and directed the concerned respondents to surrender before the Special Court within one week; it dismissed appeals relating to Akshat Singh, Naveen Kumar and Mahesh Dutt Sharma where the Special Court had granted bail or no proclamations had been issued. The Court clarified that it expressed no view on the merits and left any future bail applications to the Special Court to decide in accordance with law.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 477 (Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 13956/2023, 14033/2023, 15318/2023, 15322/2023, 13960/2023, 15326/2023, 15333/2023, 14128/2023, 13965/2023, 13975/2023, 13983/2023, 13976/2023, 13971/2023, 13973-13974/2023, 15311/2023, 13978/2023) Case Title: Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Advocate (for SFIO) For the Respondent(s): Senior Advocates Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Mr. Nadkarni, Mr. Somayajulu; and Mr. Siddharth Dave, Mr. Basant, Mr. Nagamuthu, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Mr. Devesh Bhatia, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Vivek Soni, Mr. Arjun Sharma, Mr. Aniruddh Joshi (for various respondents).