The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on a plea filed by Surana Group Managing Director Vijayraj Surana, who has sought relaxation in his bail conditions in connection with a financial fraud case involving more than ₹10,000 crore.
A bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and also comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Vipul M. Pancholi, issued notice to the SFIO and fixed the matter for hearing after four weeks. Senior advocate C.U. Singh, appearing for Surana, urged the court to consider easing certain restrictions imposed at the time of bail.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the SFIO argued that the accused first secured bail and was now attempting to dilute its conditions. The CJI briefly observed, “Issue notice. Returnable after four weeks.”
On May 20, the Supreme Court had granted bail to Surana, who is facing trial under the Companies Act and relevant provisions of the IPC for his alleged role in a massive corporate fraud. While doing so, the bench had observed that “prolonged detention before the commencement of trial would amount to punishment without conviction.”
The court had directed that Surana be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge for Companies Act cases), Chennai, subject to strict conditions. These included surrendering his passport to the trial court, not leaving India without permission, refraining from influencing witnesses, and cooperating fully to ensure speedy completion of the trial. The bench also cautioned that any attempt to delay proceedings could lead to cancellation of bail.
The SFIO’s probe stems from a March 28, 2019 order by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which led to the registration of a criminal case in 2023 before a special court in Chennai designated for offences under the Companies Act. According to the agency, the Surana Group owes approximately ₹10,233 crore to various banks and financial institutions.
The investigation alleges large-scale loan defaults, diversion of funds, and financial misrepresentation by several group entities engaged in energy, metals, and infrastructure. Both the Special Court for Companies Act cases and the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, had earlier denied bail, citing the gravity of the alleged fraud and the ongoing probe.
Before the Supreme Court, the SFIO had opposed Surana’s bail plea, describing the case as an “enormous economic offence” involving public funds. However, the top court noted that the trial had not yet begun despite the presence of 90 accused persons, 125 witnesses, and voluminous documentary evidence—making early completion improbable.
The court will now hear the plea for relaxation of bail conditions after the SFIO submits its response.
