In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has tightened the scope of anticipatory bail for absconding individuals, particularly in serious economic offences.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that
“individuals who deliberately evade the execution of warrants or attempt to conceal themselves from legal proceedings are not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail—especially in cases involving serious economic offences”
Background of the Case
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed this crucial judgment while deciding a batch of 16 appeals filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The appeals challenged the orders of the High Court, which had granted anticipatory bail to several accused individuals facing prosecution for serious violations under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs had directed the SFIO to conduct an in-depth investigation into the financial dealings of 125 companies belonging to the Adarsh Group (CIUs), along with 20 other companies and two individuals. Based on the findings, the SFIO submitted a report recommending prosecution. Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed before the Special Court against 181 accused persons, including the respondents.
Despite being fully aware of the pending proceedings, the accused repeatedly avoided legal summons and bailable warrants. In several instances, they concealed themselves with the apparent assistance of process servers, effectively hindering the execution of judicial orders. As a result, the Special Court was compelled to issue non-bailable warrants (NBWs) and even initiate proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC in some cases.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Apex Court, while setting aside the High Court’s order, made several key observations:
“The law aids only the law-abiding and certainly not its resistants,” the Bench remarked, emphasizing that once a court has issued summons or a warrant, the accused is legally obliged to comply. Deliberate evasion of such processes reflects clear contempt of judicial authority.
The Court held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and should not be granted to individuals who are:
- Absconding,
- Deliberately avoiding arrest or appearance before the court, or
- Creating obstacles in the execution of lawful orders.
The Court underscored that economic offences form a distinct category. Such crimes typically involve complex conspiracies and massive financial repercussions on the national economy. These offences must be viewed with greater seriousness, given their impact on public trust and financial systems.
Criticism of High Court’s Approach
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the High Court for granting anticipatory bail without due regard to the seriousness of the offences or the conduct of the accused. It noted that the High Court:
- Ignored the repeated issuance of non-bailable warrants,
- Failed to acknowledge the proclamation proceedings,
- Overlooked the binding legal provisions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and
- Did not properly assess the detailed orders passed by the Special Court to secure the presence of the accused.
“Such orders are not just legally untenable but fall into the category of perverse, being passed in blatant disregard of statutory requirements and established legal principles,” the Court stated.
Reiterating the Role of Judiciary in Upholding Rule of Law
The Court made an important observation regarding judicial discipline and accountability, stating that
“every judicial forum—from Magistrates to the Apex Court—invests valuable time and resources in the pursuit of justice. Disobedience and avoidance tactics employed by accused persons only serve to obstruct the administration of justice.“
The Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail to such individuals would not only undermine the justice delivery system but also erode public confidence in the law.
“If the rule of law is to prevail, every citizen must respect legal processes and cooperate with judicial authorities,”
the Court affirmed.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the SFIO’s appeals, set aside the High Court’s orders, and directed the accused persons to surrender before the Special Court. The ruling reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail cannot be misused as a shield by those attempting to derail criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 477
Appellant Counsel: Sudarshan Lamba, Amrish Kumar, Padmesh Mishra, Hari Kishan
Respondent Counsel: Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave, Nadkarni, Somayajulu, and others
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE