The Supreme Court on Wednesday emphasized the gravity of economic offenses, describing them as deeply conspiratorial with significant public fund implications, meriting stringent judicial scrutiny. In a pronounced judgment, the bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and P B Varale stated that anticipatory bail is not a general entitlement, especially for those evading legal proceedings.
The ruling came as the court allowed 16 appeals by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and revoked the anticipatory bail previously granted to defendants in the notorious Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society case, involving embezzlement of over Rs 9,000 crore.
“Economic offences constitute a class apart, as they involve deep-rooted conspiracies and substantial loss of public funds, thus affecting the country’s economy at large and posing a serious threat to its financial health,” the bench remarked. The court underscored that the law supports only those who abide by it, not those who resist it by avoiding court appearances or concealing themselves to derail proceedings.
This firm stance was taken in light of the chargesheet and ongoing legal actions where individuals were summoned or had warrants issued against them. Justice Trivedi, who authored the verdict, pointed out that such individuals, especially those hindering the execution of warrants or concealing themselves, should not be granted anticipatory bail, particularly when found prima facie involved in severe economic or heinous offenses by the courts.
The Supreme Court also instructed high courts to seriously and diligently consider issuing non-bailable warrants and initiating proclamation proceedings when hearing pre-arrest bail applications. In the case at hand, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had directed the SFIO to investigate the dealings of 125 companies, leading to significant findings against the accused under the Companies Act and the IPC.
Highlighting the specific provisions of the Companies Act, the bench noted that being charged under Section 447 makes an accused ineligible for bail unless specific conditions are met — these include the opportunity for a public prosecutor to oppose bail and the court’s satisfaction of the accused not being guilty and unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail.
The apex court criticized the Punjab and Haryana High Court for its orders that granted anticipatory bail to the accused despite recognition of their offenses under stringent sections of the Companies Act and IPC by the special court. The Supreme Court termed these orders as “perverse” and “untenable at law,” directing the accused to surrender to the special court within a week.
