In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that individuals who evade the law after issuance of a chargesheet or summons are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that such conduct obstructs the administration of justice and undermines the integrity of criminal proceedings. The judgement was delivered by the bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice PB Varale
The judgment was delivered in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Aditya Sarda & Others [Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13956 of 2023)] and connected matters, arising from a criminal complaint pending before the Special Court, Gurugram. The appeals were filed by the SFIO challenging the orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting anticipatory bail to several accused, despite their continued non-compliance with summons and warrants issued by the trial court.
Background of the Case
The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), a statutory body under Section 211 of the Companies Act, 2013, was directed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to investigate the affairs of 145 companies linked to the Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Limited (ACCSL). ACCSL, allegedly controlled by Mukesh Modi and his associates, was found to have disbursed illegal loans amounting to ₹4120 crores to various companies within the Adarsh Group.
On completion of the investigation, the SFIO submitted its report and filed a criminal complaint (COMA/5/2019) before the Special Court, Gurugram, naming 181 accused persons, including the respondents in these appeals. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences under the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013, IPC, and LLP Act, and issued summons and bailable warrants on 03.06.2019.
Conduct of the Accused and Court Proceedings
The Court noted that several respondents, including Aditya Sarda and others, failed to comply with the summons and warrants. The SFIO alleged that the accused deliberately concealed themselves to avoid arrest. In many cases, the accused were reported as “not found at the address” or “house locked.” As a result, the Special Court had to issue repeated non-bailable warrants and ultimately initiated proceedings under Section 82 of CrPC for proclamation as absconders.
Despite these developments, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondents in March and April 2023. SFIO challenged these orders before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The bench held that the conduct of the accused persons in avoiding summons and warrants, after having full knowledge of the pending criminal complaint, disqualified them from seeking anticipatory bail.
The Court observed:
“The very fact of their filing anticipatory bail applications before the Special Court falsifies the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsels for the said respondents that the respondents were not aware of the complaint proceedings filed by the SFIO.”
“There is no justification coming forth from the said respondents as to why after the rejection of their anticipatory bail applications by the Special Court, they did not appear before the Special Court and made themselves unavailable at the given addresses…”
The Court upheld the proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC and emphasized that such evasion cannot be rewarded with protection under anticipatory bail provisions.
Legal Principles Cited
The Court relied on Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, which restricts the grant of bail for offences under Section 447 (fraud) without hearing the public prosecutor and ensuring that the accused is not guilty.
Citing precedent from P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, the Court reiterated that:
“Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.”
It further held:
“The consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in all cases where the respondents were found to have evaded process after summons or chargesheet, and set aside the orders granting anticipatory bail. However, it dismissed the appeals against Akshat Singh, Naveen Kumar, and Mahesh Dutt Sharma, noting that the Special Court itself had granted anticipatory bail in their cases and there were no non-bailable warrants or proclamation proceedings initiated against them.
