The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on Vijayraj Surana’s plea seeking relaxation of his bail conditions in a ₹10,000 crore financial fraud case. The top court had earlier granted him bail, noting that prolonged detention before trial amounts to “punishment without conviction.”
The Supreme Court has emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in economic offences, given their serious impact on the financial system and public trust. The observation came while the Court set aside anticipatory bail granted to several accused in the Adarsh Group of Companies scam. It noted that economic offences require thorough investigation and custodial interrogation, which can be hampered by pre-arrest bail.
Today, On 4th December, the Supreme Court granted bail to Anil Jindal, head of the SRS Group, in a Rs. 770 crore fraud case. Jindal had been in custody for over six years without trial. The bail comes with strict conditions, as the Serious Fraud Investigation Office investigates allegations of financial misconduct and fund misappropriation.
Justice B. V. Nagarathna is a distinguished Judge of the Supreme Court of India, known for her significant contributions to jurisprudence. Born in 1962, she transitioned from the Karnataka High Court to the Supreme Court, where she is considered a role model and a potential candidate for Chief Justice, inspiring women in law.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed SFIO’s case against Vijay Mallya and Captain R. Gopinath, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 2013 to retrospectively apply to offenses under the Companies Act, 1956. The court emphasized proper approval of the merger, preventing fraud allegations from being revisited through criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court is set to address 400+ writ petitions on May 1st, challenging penal provisions under five laws. The laws under scrutiny include GST, Customs Act, Companies Act, Black Money Act, and FCRA. Additionally, a bench will address the validity of provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Various pleas question the constitutionality and procedures of these laws.