The Supreme Court while quashing the anticipatory bail in Adarsh Scam held that the bail in economic offences must be granted sparingly.
The bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has observed 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 bench remarked that 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 the accused, 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 Appellant, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is a statutory body constituted and established under Section 211 of the Companies Act of 2013. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) vide the order dated 20.06.2018 in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 43(2) and (3)(c)(i) of Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 directed the SFIO to inquire and investigate into the affairs of 125 Companies of Adarsh Group (CIUs). The MCA further ordered to investigate into the affairs of 20 other companies and two persons.
The batch of sixteen Appeals being interconnected with each other and arising out of the proceedings pending before the Special Judge, Gurugram, are being decided by this common judgment.
In these cases, there is a brazen attempt made on the part of the respondents-accused to stall the criminal proceedings initiated against them, in respect of the serious economic offences allegedly committed by them, by not respecting the summons/warrants issued by the Special Court from time to time and thereby causing obstruction in the administration of justice.
The court held that granting anticipatory bail is certainly not the rule. The respondents- accused, who have continuously avoided to follow the due process of law, by avoiding attendance in the Court, by concealing themselves and thereby attempting to derail the proceedings, would not be entitled to the anticipatory bail. If the Rule of Law is to prevail in society, every person would have to abide by the law, respect the law and follow the due process of law.
The court held that the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the concerned accused who are the respondents in these Appeals, are set aside.
Case Details
Case Title: Serious Fraud Investigation Office Versus Aditya Sarda
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13956 Of 2023
Date: 09/04/2025
