Supreme Court of India
SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICEversusADITYA SARDA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 477
- Decided
- 8 April 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- BELA M TRIVEDI
Holding
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted where the accused has evaded non‑bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings for offences under Companies Act s.447, as the mandatory twin conditions of s.212(6) are not satisfied, rendering the High Court’s orders perverse and untenable.
Summary
The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) investigated alleged fraud involving the Adarsh Group and filed a criminal complaint before a Special Court, which took cognizance of offences under the Companies Act, 2013 and the IPC and issued bailable and later non‑bailable warrants against 16 respondents. The respondents repeatedly avoided execution of the warrants and absconded, prompting the Special Court to initiate proclamation proceedings under CrPC s.82. The Punjab and Haryana High Court later granted anticipatory bail to the respondents despite the Special Court’s rejection and the existence of non‑bailable warrants. The Supreme Court held that, under Companies Act s.212(6), bail for offences under s.447 is subject to mandatory twin conditions and that the High Court’s orders were perverse, ignoring the respondents’ conduct and the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s anticipatory bail orders, directed the respondents to surrender before the Special Court, and disposed of the batch of appeals, allowing some and dismissing others. The judgment reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, not to be granted in serious economic offences where the accused obstructs justice.
Issues considered
- The applicability of anticipatory bail under CrPC s.438 to offences punishable under Companies Act s.447.
- Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail despite the existence of non‑bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings.
- The mandatory twin conditions under Companies Act s.212(6) for bail in fraud cases and their relevance to anticipatory bail.
- The discretion of the court to issue bailable versus non‑bailable warrants under CrPC s.204 in warrant cases.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 204, s. 438, s. 482, s. 82
- Companies Act, 2013s. 212(6), s. 447
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the sustainability of orders passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondents accused of serious economic offences, and avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders of the Court. Headnotes† Code of ss.82, 204, 482 – Anticipatory bail – Avoiding execution of summons or warrants – Appellant-SFIO lodged a complaint before the Special Court against the respondents-accused, alleging serious offences under the Companies Act and IPC – Special court took cognizance of
Subjects
Serious economic offencesAnticipatory bailProclamation orderLoss of public fundsExecution of warrantsTwin conditions of bailJudicial time of courtAvoiding execution of warrantsObstruction in administration of justiceAvoiding attendance in courtSummons caseWarrants caseOrders perverse and untenable in lawSerious Fraud Investigation OfficeCognizance of offencesBailable warrantsIssuance of non-bailable warrantsProclamation of offenders proceedingsCancellation of anticipatory bailNon-bailable warrantsFraudPublic Prosecutor
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 485 : 2025 INSC 477
Serious Fraud Investigation Office
v.
Aditya Sarda
(Criminal Appeal No. 1872 of 2025)
09 April 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the sustainability of orders passed by the High
Court granting anticipatory bail to respondents accused of serious
economic offences, and avoiding execution of summons or warrants,
disobeying the orders of the Court.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.82, 204, 482 –
Anticipatory bail – Avoiding execution of summons or
warrants – Appellant-SFIO lodged a complaint before the
Special Court against the respondents-accused, alleging
serious offences under the Companies Act and IPC – Special
court took cognizance of offences and summoned the
respondents by issuing bailable warrants – Respondents did
not allow bailable warrants to be executed on them – Issuance
of non-bailable warrants against the respondents by the
Special Court and also proclamation of offenders proceedings
initiated against some of the respondents – High Court
granted anticipatory bail to the respondents – In case of two
respondents, High Court rejected petition seeking cancellation
of anticipatory bail granted by Special Court – Sustainability:
Held: Orders being perverse and untenable at law, cannot be
allowed to be sustained – Respondents avoided the execution
of the non-bailable warrants even after their anticipatory bail
applications were rejected by Special Court – If accused is
creating hindrances in execution of warrants/concealing himself
and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be
granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when court
taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious
economic offences or heinous offences – High Courts should
* Author
486 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
also consider the factum of issuance of non-bailable warrants
and initiation of proclamation proceedings seriously and not
casually, while considering the anticipatory bail application of
such accused – Though the Special Court had taken cognizance
of the alleged offences under the Companies Act including
u/s.447 and other offences under the IPC, and even though the
non-bailable warrants were issued from time to time against the
respondents, as also the proclamation proceedings were initiated
against them, the High Court passed the impugned orders, in
utter disregard of the mandatory conditions contained in s.212(6)
and also ignoring the conduct of the respondents – In none of
the impugned orders, the High Court bothered to look into the
proceedings conducted, and the detailed orders passed by the
Special Court for securing the presence of the respondents-
accused – Judicial time of every court, even of Magistrate’s Court
is as precious and valuable as that of the High Courts and the
Supreme Court – Accused are duty bound to cooperate the trial
courts in proceeding further with the cases and bound to remain
present in the Court as and when required by the Court – Not
allowing the Courts to proceed further with the cases by avoiding
execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders of the
Court, and trying to delay the proceedings by hook or crook, would
certainly amount to interfering with and causing obstruction in the
administration of justice – Granting anticipatory bail is certainly
not the rule – Respondents who have continuously avoided to
follow the due process of law, by avoiding attendance in the
Court, by concealing themselves and thereby attempting to derail
the proceedings, would not be entitled to the anticipatory bail –
Thus, the impugned orders passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the respondents set aside – Companies Act,
2013 – ss.212(6), 447. [Paras 9, 23, 24, 26-30]
Companies Act, 2013 – ss. 212(6), 447 – Investigation into
affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office –
Punishment for fraud – Twin conditions for bail:
Held: As per s.212(6), offence covered u/s.447 has been made
cognizable and the person accused of the said offence is not entitled
to be released on bail, unless twin conditions mentioned therein are
satisfied – Said twin conditions are mandatory in nature that a Public
Prosecutor to be given an opportunity to oppose the application
for such release; and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 487
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail. [Para 24]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.204 – Issue of process –
Summons case – Warrant case – Power of the court to issue
bailable or non-bailable warrants:
Held: There cannot be a strait jacket formula that the Court must
first issue a summons even in case of a warrant case, irrespective of
the gravity or seriousness of the offence – Whether the attendance
of the accused can be best secured by issuing a bailable warrant
or non-bailable warrant, would be a matter, which entirely rests
at the discretion of the court – Although the discretion should be
exercised judiciously, diverse considerations such as the nature
and seriousness of the offence, the circumstances peculiar to the
accused, possibility of his concealing or absconding, larger interest
of public and state etc. also must be seriously considered by the
court. [Para 28]
Case Law Cited
Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and
Others [2007] 10 SCR 847 : (2007) 12 SCC 1; P. Chidambaram
v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019] 12 SCR 172 : (2019) 9 SCC
24; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation
[2013] 3 SCR 547 : (2013) 7 SCC 439; Nimmagadda Prasad v.
Central Bureau of Investigation [2013] 3 SCR 493 : (2013) 7 SCC
466; Srikant Upadhyay and Others v. State of Bihar and Another
[2024] 3 SCR 421 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 282; Prem Shankar
Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another [2021] 6 SCR 1176 : (2022)
14 SCC 516; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of
India and Others [2022] 6 SCR 382 : (2023) 12 SCC 1; Union
of India through Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad [2025] 2
SCR 544 : 2025 SCC Online SC 306; Tarsem Lal v. Directorate
of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office [2024] 6 SCR 864 : (2024)
7 SCC 61 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Companies
Act, 2013; Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008; Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002.
488 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Serious economic offences; Anticipatory bail; Proclamation order;
Loss of public funds; Execution of warrants; Twin conditions
of bail; Judicial time of court; Avoiding execution of warrants;
Obstruction in administration of justice; Avoiding attendance in court;
Summons case; Warrants case; Orders perverse and untenable in
law; Serious Fraud Investigation Office; Cognizance of offences;
Bailable warrants; Issuance of non-bailable warrants; Proclamation
of offenders proceedings; Cancellation of anticipatory bail; Non-
bailable warrants; Fraud; Public Prosecutor.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1872 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2023 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 17518 of 2022
With
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1875, 1876, 1878, 1879, 1885, 1886, 1888,
1873, 1874, 1877, 1880, 1881, 1882-1883, 1884 and 1887 of 2025.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Amrish Kumar, Sudarshan Lamba, Padmesh Mishra, Hari Kishan,
Abhinav Deshwal, Mt. Vishal Singh.
Advs. for the Respondent:
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Anirudh Joshi, Umang Shankar, Gautam
Awasthi, Aditya Samaddar, Arjun Sharma, Upendra Pratap Singh.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This batch of sixteen Appeals being interconnected with each other
and arising out of the proceedings being CIS No. COMA/5/2019
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 489
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
pending before the Special Judge, Gurugram, are being decided
by this common judgment.
3. In these cases, there is a brazen attempt made on the part of the
respondents-accused to stall the criminal proceedings initiated against
them, in respect of the serious economic offences allegedly committed
by them, by not respecting the summons/warrants issued by the
Special Court from time to time and thereby causing obstruction in
the administration of justice. A few basic common facts necessary
for deciding the present appeals may be stated as under: -
(i) The Appellant i.e. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is
a statutory body constituted and established under Section 211
of the Companies Act of 2013. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs
(MCA) vide the order dated 20.06.2018 in exercise of its powers
conferred under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013
and Section 43(2) and (3)(c)(i) of Limited Liability Partnership Act,
2008 directed the SFIO to inquire and investigate into the affairs
of 125 Companies of Adarsh Group (hereinafter referred to as
“CIUs”). On 25.02.2019, the MCA further ordered to investigate
into the affairs of 20 other companies and two persons.
(ii) On 09.05.2019, the SFIO, on completion of the investigation
submitted an Investigation report to the MCA recommending
prosecution against the respondents for the various offences
under the Companies Act (1956 and 2013) and of the IPC.
Accordingly, on 18.05.2019, a Criminal Complaint being
COMA/5/2019, came to be filed by the SFIO in the Special Court
at Gurugram impleading 181 Accused including the respondents
in the instant Appeals, under Section 439(2) read with Section
436(1)(a), (d) and (2) read with Section 212 of the Companies
Act, 2013, read with Section 621(1) of the Companies Act, 1956,
read with Section 50 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act,
2008, read with Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
seeking taking of cognizance and prosecution of the Accused
named therein for the offences committed by them jointly and
severally, under the various provisions of the Companies Act
and the Indian Penal Code as mentioned therein.
(iii) It has been alleged in the complaint that one Adarsh Credit
Cooperative Society Limited (ACCSL) was a Multi-State
Credit Cooperative Society, founded by one Mukesh Modi,
490 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and was managed and controlled by him and his family and
his associates.
(iv) The said society accepted the deposits from its members, who
were mostly low to middle income individuals. The ACCSL had
800+ branches, 20 lakhs members, 3.7 lakhs advisors and
Rs.9253 crores of outstanding deposits as on 31.05.2018.
It is further alleged that the controllers of the Society i.e.
Mukesh Modi, Rahul Modi and others got incorporated around
125 companies (Adarsh Group of Companies), and started
controlling the said Companies by either becoming themselves
as the directors or making their members and associates as
the directors of the said Companies. On the completion of the
investigation it was found that the funds to the tune of Rs.1700
crores were given by the ACCSL as illegal loans to its own
controlled 70 Adarsh Group of Companies (CUIs) and certain
other companies belonging to the other groups of persons,
contrary to settled the position that a company could not be a
member of a multi-state credit cooperative society and therefore
loans could not have been given to such companies by the
ACCSL. It is further alleged that total amount of Rs.4120 crores
were the outstanding balance as on 31.03.2018 against such
illegal loans given by the ACCSL.
(v) It is also further alleged by the SFIO that the illegal loans
obtained from ACCSL by the Companies belonging to Adarsh
Group and Ridhi Sidhi Group were on the basis of forged
financial/loan documents submitted/signed by the directors of the
Companies belonging to the Adarsh Group. The said directors
had siphoned off the said funds/loans obtained from the ACCSL
in connivance of the other accused. The directors had signed
off balance sheets of the companies showing the said funds
obtained ACCSL as “loans taken from a financial institution”.
(vi) The Special Court vide the detailed Order dated 03.06.2019
took the cognizance of all the offences alleged against the
accused including the respondents, under the Companies Act
and under the IPC, and summoned all the accused including
the respondents herein by issuing bailable warrants in the
sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount with the
direction to appear on 30.07.2019.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 491
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
(vii) There being some clerical/typographical errors found in the
order dated 03.06.2019, the Special Court corrected the
cognizance order vide the order dated 11.07.2019. Since the
respondents-accused allegedly did not allow the said bailable
warrants issued by the Special Court to be executed on them,
by hiding themselves and not making themselves available
at the given residential addresses, in collusion with the
process servers, the Special Court had to issue non-bailable
warrants against the respondents from time to time by passing
detailed orders. In some of the cases, the Special Court also
initiated proclamation of offenders proceedings against the
accused.
4. The details of the status of each of the respondents and the orders
passed by the Special Court issuing bailable/non-bailable warrants/
initiating proclamation proceedings against them are tabulated
hereunder for the sake of convenience.
ITEM CASE WARRANTS PROCLAMATION ANTICIPATORY WHETHER
(BAILABLE (BW) PROCEEDINGS BAIL (SPECIAL
& NON-BAILABLE INITIATED COURT & HIGH S 447/448/76(A)
(NBW)) COURT) Companies Act
2013 was invoked
for invoking
S 212(6)
Companies Act
1 SFIO vs. 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special S. 447
Aditya Sarda, Court
SLP (Crl.) No. 03.06.2019 (25.03.2022) (@ Page 577 of
13956/2023 30.07.2019 (08.07.2020) Annexure P10 of
[Annexure P17, the concerned
[Annexure P17, Page 703 of Main [Annexure P10 SLP)
Page 702 of Main SLP i.e., Aditya of the concerned
SLP i.e., Aditya Sarda] SLP]
Sarda]
Granted by High
7 NBW Court
04.09.2019 (20.04.2023)
03.10.2019 CRM-M-17518/2022
24.09.2020
15.01.2021 (IMPUGNED)
19.02.2020
04.08.2020
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 702 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
492 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2 SFIO vs Abhay 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special Ss. 447, 448
K. Shah, Court
03.06.2019 (25.03.2022)
S.L.P (Crl)
30.07.2019
14033/2023
(23.09.2019)
[Annexure P15, [Annexure P15,
Page 628 of the Page 619 of the [Annexure P5,
concerned SLP] concerned SLP] [Annexure P5, Page 483 of the
Page 483 the of concerned SLP]
10 NBW
the concerned
23.09.2019 SLP]
03.10.2019
19.10.2019 Granted by High
22.11.2019 Court
31.01.2020 (29.03.2023)
24.09.2020
15.01.2021 CRM-M-43219/2019
19.02.2021
(IMPUGNED)
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P15,
Page 628 of the
concerned SLP]
3 SFIO vs. 5 BW Pro. Order Denied by Special S. 447
Nazima Khan, Court
03.06.2019
SLP (Crl.) No. (25.03.2022)
30.07.2019 [Annexure P15,
15318/2023) (11.05.2022)
04.09.2019 Page 651 of the
03.10.2019 [Annexure P13,
concerned SLP]
19.10.2019 Page 629 of the [Annexure P15,
concerned SLP] Page 651 of
[Annexure P13, concerned SLP]
Page 629 of the
concerned SLP] Granted by High
Court
8 NBW
(29.03.2023)
02.11.2019
22.11,2019 CRM-M-25052/2022
17.12.2019 (IMPUGNED)
31.01.2019
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P13,
Page 629 of the
concerned SLP]
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 493
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
4 SFIO Vs. 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special S. 447
Shinder Pal Court
03.06.2019
Singh &
30.07.2019
Gurbir Singh, (25.03.2022)
SLP(Crl.) [Annexure P14, (13.09.2019) [Annexure P6,
15322/2023 Page 653 of the Page 543 of the
concerned SLP [Annexure P14, concerned SLP]
for Shinder Pal Page 653 of the [Annexure P6,
Singh] concerned SLP Page 543 of the
[Annexure P14, Page for Shinder Pal concerned SLP]
654 of the concerned Singh]
Granted by High
SLP for Gurbir Singh [Annexure P14, Court
Sandhu] Page 654 of
the concerned (29.03.2023)
11 NBW
SLP for Gurbir CRM-M-
13.09.2019 Singh Sandhu of 27845/2022
03.10.2019 concerned SLP]
19.10.2019 [IMPUGNED]
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P14,
Page 653 of the
concerned SLP
for Shinder Pal
Singh]
[Annexure P14, Page
654 of the concerned
SLP for Gurbir Singh
Sandhu]
5 SFIO vs. 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special S. 447
Deepak 03.06.2019 Court
Shrimali, 30.07.2019 (25.03.2022)
SLP (Crl.) No (25.05.2022) (@ Page 664 of
13960/2023 [Annexure P17, Annexure P15 of
Page 693 of Main [Annexure P17, the concerned
SLP i.e., Aditya Page 694 of Main [Annexure P15 SLP
Sarda] SLP i.e., Aditya of the concerned
Sarda] SLP]
11 NBW
04.09.2019 Granted by High
03.10.2019 Court
19.10.2019 (29.03.2023)
22.11.2019
17.12.2019 CRM-M-
31.01.2020 25804/2022
24.09.2020
(IMPUGNED)
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 693 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
494 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6 SFIO Vs. 2 BW NO Denied by Special S. 447
Mahesh Dutt PROCLAMATION Court
Sharma, 03.06.2019 INITIATED
30.07.2019 [Annexure P8,
S.L.P (Crl.)
(02.07.2020) Page 548 of the
No. 15326/
NO NBW concerned SLP]
2023
[Annexure P8,
Page 548 of the
concerned SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-20279
/2020
[IMPUGNED]
7 SFIO Vs. Nitin 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special S. 447
Rathore, Court
S.L.P 03.06.2019
30.07.2019 (25.03.2019) [Annexure P6,
(Crl.) No.
(15.11.2019) Page 494 of the
15333/2023
concerned SLP
[Annexure P15, [Annexure P15,
Page 593 of the Page 593 of the [Annexure P6,
concerned SLP concerned SLP] Page 493 of the
concerned SLP]
11 NBW
Granted by High
04.09.2019 Court
03.10.2019
19.10.2019 (29.03.2023)
22.11.2019
CRM-M-
17.12.2019|
51929/2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020 (IMPUGNED)
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P15,
Page 593 of the
concerned SLP
8 SFIO Vs. 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special S. 447
Shyam Bihari Court
Gupta, 03.06.2019 (25.03.2022) [Annexure P7,
SLP (Crl.) No. 30.07.2019 (20.08.2020) Page 502 of the
14128/2023 concerned SLP]
[Annexure P14,
[Annexure P14, Page 629 of the [Annexure P7,
Page 629 of the concerned SLP] Page 494 of the
concerned SLP] concerned SLP]
5 NBW Granted by High
Court
24.09.2020
15.01.2021 (29.03.2023)
19.02.2021
04.08.2021 CRM-M-17096/2022
08.09.2021
(IMPUGNED)
[Annexure P14,
Page 629 of the
concerned SLP]
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 495
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
9 SFIO vs. 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special S. 447
Naveen Court
03.06.2019 (25.03.2022)
Choudhary, (@ Page 497
30.07.2019 (21.12.2019)
SLP (Crl.) No. Annexure P6 of
13965/2023 [Annexure P17,
the concerned
[Annexure P17, Page 710 of Main [Annexure P6 of
SLP)
Page 709 of Main SLP i.e., Aditya the concerned
SLP i.e., Aditya Sarda] SLP]
Sarda]
Granted by High
12 NBW Court
04.09.2019 (29.03.2023)
03.10.2019
CRM-M-
19.10.2019
25508/2022
22.11.2019
17.12.2019 (IMPUGNED)
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 709 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
10 SFIO vs. 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special Ss 447/448/76A
Manish Court
03.06.2019 (25.03.2022) (@ Page 600,
Chaudhary,
30.07.2019 (13.05.2020) Annexure P14 of
SLP (Crl.) No. [Annexure P17,
the concerned
13975/2023 [Annexure P17, Page 692 of Main [Annexure P14
SLP)
Page 691 of Main SLP i.e., Aditya of the concerned
SLP i.e., Aditya Sarda] SLP]
Sarda]
Granted by High
11 NBW Court
04.09.2019 (29.03.2023)
03.10.2019
CRM-M-
19.10.2019
27804/2022
22.11.2019
17.12.2019 (IMPUGNED)
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 691 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
496 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
11 SFIO vs. 13 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special Ss 447/448
Shabbir Khan, Court
SLP (Crl.) No. 03.06.2019 (25.03.2022) (@ Page 593,
13983/2023 30.07.2019 (11.05.2022) Annexure P14 of
04.09.2019 [Annexure P 17, the concerned
03.10.2019 Page 707 of Main [Annexure P14 SLP)
19.10.2019 SLP i.e., Aditya of the concerned
02.11.2019 Sarda] SLP]
22.11.2019
Granted by High
17.12.2019
Court
31.01.2020
24.09.2020 (29.03.2023)
15.01.2021
19.02.2021 CRM-M-25054/2022
04.08.2021
(IMPUGNED)
[Annexure P17,
Page 706 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
1 NBW
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 706 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda
12 SFIO vs. 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special Ss 447/448/76A
Saurabh Tak, Court
SLP (Crl.) No. 03.06.2019 (25.03.2022) (@ Page 498
13976/2023 30.07.2019 (20.08.2020) Annexure P7 of
[Annexure P17, the concerned
[Annexure P17, Page 714 of Main [Annexure P7 of SLP)
Page 713 of Main SLP i.e., Aditya the concerned
SLP i.e., Aditya Sarda] SLP]
Sarda]
Granted by High
5 NBW Court
24.09.2020 (29.03.2023)
15.01.2021
19.02.2021 CRM-M-242999/
04.08.2021 2022
08.09.2021
(IMPUGNED)
[Annexure P17,
Page 713 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 497
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
13 SFIO vs. 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special Ss 447/448
Jinendra Vyas, Court
SLP (Crl.) No. 03.06.2019 (25.03.2022) (Page 488,
13971/2023 30.07.2019 (24.09.2020) Annexure P5 of
[Annexure P17, the concerned
[Annexure P17, Page 687 of Main [Annexure P5 of SLP)
Page 686 of Main SLP i.e., Aditya the concerned
SLP i.e., Aditya Sarda] SLP]
Sarda]
Granted by High
12 NBW Court
24.09.2019 (29.03.2023)
03.10.2019
19.10.2019 CRM-M-31742/2021
02.11.2019 (IMPUGNED)
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 686 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
14 SFIO vs. Akshat Akshat Akshat Singh Akshat
Akshat Singh, withdrew his Ist
SLP (Crl.) No. 2 BW Pro.Order Anticipatory Bail Ss 447/448/76A
13973/2023 03.06.2019 (25.03.2022) Application [Annexure P19,
30.07.2019 on 15.12.2021 Page 844 of the
WITH [Annexure P17,
[Annexure P10 concerned SLP]
[Annexure P17, Page 698 of Main
Page 697 of Main SLP i.e., Aditya of the concerned
SLP i.e., Aditya Sarda] SLP]
Sarda] Second Anticipatory
Akshat Bail Application was
allowed to Akshat
11 NBW Singh by Special
Court
04.09.2019
03.10.2019 (20.07.2022)
19.10.2019
22.11.2019 [Annexure P19
17.12.2019 of the concerned
31.01.2020 SLP]
24.09.2020 High Court rejected
15.01.2021 Petition for
19.02.2021 Cancellation of Bail
04.08.2021 granted to Akshat
08.09.2021 Singh (20.03.2023)
[Annexure P17, CRM-M-40944/2022
Page 697 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya (IMPUGNED)
Sarda]
498 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SFIO vs. Naveen Naveen Anticipatory Bail Naveen
Naveen granted to Naveen
Kumar, SLP 2 BW Pro.Order Kumar by Special Ss 447/6A
(Crl.) No. 03.06.2019 (25.03.2022) Court [Annexure P18,
13974/2023 30.07.2019 Page 826 of the
[Annexure P17 (19.07.2022)
concerned SLP]
[Annexure P17, Page 701-702 of
Page 701 of Main Main SLP i.e.,
SLP i.e., Aditya Aditya Sarda]
Sarda]
Naveen High Court rejected
Petition for
11 BW Cancellation of Bail
granted to Naveen
04.09.2019 Kumar (20.03.2023)
03.10.2019
19.10.2019 CRM-M-1180/2023
22.11.2019
17.12.2019 (IMPUGNED)
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 701 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
15 SFIO Vs. 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special S. 447
Prakash Court
Chandra 03.6.2019 (25.03.2022)
30.7.2019 (25.05.2022) [Annexure P14,
Purohit Page 594
SLP (Crl.) No. [Annexure P13, [Annexure P14, of
15311/ 2023 [Annexure P13, Page 561 of the Page 94 concerned SLP]
Page 561 of the concerned SLP] of the
concerned SLP] concerned SLP]
11 NBW Granted by High
04.09.2019 Court
03.10.2019 (29.03.2023)
19.10.2019
22.11.2019 CRM-M-25516/2022
17.12.2019
31.01.2020 (IMPUGNED)
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P13,
Page 561 of the
concerned SLP]
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 499
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
16 SFIO vs. 2 BW Pro.Order Denied by Special S. 447
Paras Bolia, Court
SLP (Crl.) No. 03.06.2019 (25.03.2022) [Annexure P8,
13978/2023 30.07.2019 (08.07.2020) Page 555 of the
[Annexure P16, concerned SLP]
[Annexure P16,
Page 651 of the Page 651 of the [Annexure P8,
concerned SLP] concerned SLP] Page 555 of the
concerned SLP]
9 NBW
Granted by High
04.09.2019 Court
03.10.2019
19.10.2019 (29.03.2023)
02.11.2019 CRM-M-25412/2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021 (IMPUGNED)
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P16,
Page 651 of the
concerned SLP]
5. If the individual cases of the respondents are taken into consideration,
the following facts have emerged as transpiring from the chart
tabulated hereinabove read with the order dated 25.03.2022 passed
by the Special Court initiating proclamation proceedings under
Section 82 of Cr.P.C.
(i) In case of the respondent Aditya Sarda (Accused No.141), the
bailable/non-bailable warrants could not be executed, as he was
not available at the last known address. His anticipatory bail
application was rejected by the Special Court on 08.07.2020, in
which he had mentioned the same address as mentioned in the
complaint. The Proclamation Order was passed against him on
25.03.2022. He was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court
vide the order dated 20.04.2023 which is impugned herein.
(ii) In case of the respondent Abhay K Shah (Accused No.127), the
non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that his house was locked since
long. His anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Special
Court on 23.09.2019, and was granted by the High Court vide
the order dated 29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(iii) In case of the respondent Nazima Khan (Accused No.152), the
non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that the accused was not available
500 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
at home. His anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the
Special Court on 11.05.2022 and he was granted anticipatory
bail by the High Court vide the order dated 29.03.2023, which
is impugned herein.
(iv) In case of the respondent Shinder Pal Singh (Accused No.137),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that he had left the house
at given address. His anticipatory bail was dismissed by the
Special Court on 13.09.2019 and he was granted anticipatory
bail by the High Court vide the order dated 29.03.2023, which
is impugned herein.
(v) In case of the respondent Deepak Shrimali (Accused No.129),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that as per his mother the accused
was not available at home. His anticipatory bail was rejected
by the Special Court vide the order dated 25.05.2022 and he
was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on 29.03.2023,
which is impugned herein.
(vi) In case of the respondent Mahesh Dutt Sharma, (Accused
no.178), there was no non-bailable warrants issued, nor
any proclamation proceedings were initiated against him by
the Special Court. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court vide the order dated 02.07.2020 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(vii) In case of the respondent Nitin Rathore (Accused No.116),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that he had left the house at
the given address. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court vide the order dated 15.11.2019 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(viii) In case of Shyam Bihari Gupta (Accused No.165), the non-
bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that as per the gardener in his house,
he was not available at home. His anticipatory bail was rejected
by the Special Court vide the order dated 20.08.2020 and he
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 501
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order
dated 29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(ix) In case of the respondent Naveen Choudhary (Accused No.
162), the non-bailable warrants issued against him were not
received back either executed or unexecuted and as per the
public prosecutor appearing in the case, there was no other
address available. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court vide the order dated 21.12.2019 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(x) In case of the respondent Manish Chaudhary (Accused No.
128), the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that as per his wife, he was
not available at home. His anticipatory bail was rejected by
the Special Court vide the order dated 13.05.2020 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(xi) In case of the respondent Shabbir Khan, (Accused No. 153), the
non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that as per the Chowkidar in his
house, he was not at home. His anticipatory bail was rejected
by the Special Court vide the order dated 11.05.2022 and he
was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order
dated 29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(xii) In case of the respondent Saurabh Tak (Accused No. 172),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that he had left the house at
the given address. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court vide the order dated 20.08.2020 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(xiii) In case of the respondent Jinender Vyas (Accused No. 118),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that he had left the house at
the given address. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court vide the order dated 24.09.2020 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
502 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(xiv) In case of the respondent Akshat Singh (Accused No. 136), the
non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that he had left the house at the given
address. His first anticipatory bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn by the Special Court vide the order dated 15.12.2021,
however his second anticipatory bail application was granted by
the Special Court vide the order dated 20.07.2022. It appears
that a Petition seeking cancellation of his bail was rejected
by the High Court vide the order dated 20.03.2023 which is
impugned herein. Similarly, in case of the respondent Naveen
Kumar (Accused No. 139), the non-bailable warrants issued
against him were received back unexecuted with the report
that no such person resided at the given address. However,
it appears that his anticipatory bail application was granted
by the Special Court vide the order dated 19.07.2022 and
the High Court rejected the Petition filed by the SFIO seeking
cancellation of his bail, vide the order dated 20.03.2023, which
is impugned herein.
(xv) In case of the respondent Prakash Chandra Purohit (Accused
No.133), the non-bailable warrants issued against him were
received back unexecuted with the report that the house was
locked since long. His anticipatory bail application was rejected
by the Special Court vide the order dated 25.05.2022 and he
was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order
dated 29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(xvi) In case of the respondent Paras Bolia (Accused No. 121),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that he had left the house at
the given address. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court on 08.07.2020 and he was granted anticipatory
bail by the High Court vide the order dated 29.03.2023, which
is impugned herein.
6. APPEALS ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.13973-13974/2023
AND SLP (CRL.) NO.15326/2023: - Heard learned Advocate Mr.
Padmesh Mishra for the Appellant SFIO and the learned Senior
Advocates Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Mr. Nadkarni, and Mr. Somayajulu
for the respondents in these appeals.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 503
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
7. At the outset, the learned Advocate Mr. Padmesh Mishra appearing
for the Appellant SFIO, had fairly conceded that there was no non-
bailable warrant issued against the respondent Mahesh Dutt Sharma
(SLP Crl. No.15326/2023) by the Special Court, nor any proclamation
proceedings were initiated against him. He also did not dispute that
in cases of respondent Akshat Singh and respondent Naveen Kumar
(SLP Crl. Nos.13973/2023 and 13974/2023), the Special Court itself
had granted the anticipatory bail to them, and that the petitions filed
by the SFIO against the said orders were dismissed by the High
Court. Under the circumstances, we do not propose to entertain the
Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.13973-13974/2023 and SLP
(Crl.) No.15326/2023, and the same are dismissed.
8. APPEALS IN OTHER CASES: - Heard the learned Advocates
Mr. Padmesh Mishra for the Appellant - SFIO, and the learned
Senior Advocates Mr. Siddharth Dave, Mr. Basant, Mr. Nagamuthu,
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Mr. Rudreshwar Singh,
Mr. Devesh Bhatia, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Vivek Soni, Mr. Arjun
Sharma and Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, for the respondents in these appeals.
9. The facts that have emerged from the record, clearly demonstrate
the respondents in this set of appeals had avoided the execution
of the non-bailable warrants even after their anticipatory bail
applications were rejected in 2019-2020-2022 by the Special Court.
Though it was contended by the learned Advocates appearing
for the respondents that the respondents were not aware about
the proceedings, the same cannot be accepted. 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 in the Special Court.
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 furnished by
them during the course of the investigation by the SFIO. It may be
noted that the anticipatory bail applications, of the said respondents
were allowed by the High Court only in March-April 2023. Since,
the said respondents had concealed themselves and avoided to
remain present before the Special Court despite they having the
knowledge about the pendency of the complaint proceedings, the
504 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Special Court was perfectly justified in initiating the proclamation
proceedings against the said respondents.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
10. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to reproduce some of the
provisions of the Companies Act as also the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
11. Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 pertains to the “Investigation
into the affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office”.
The relevant part thereof is reproduced below:
“212. Investigation into affairs of Company by Serious
Fraud Investigation Office. —
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 210,
where the Central Government is of the opinion, that it is
necessary to investigate into the affairs of a company by
the Serious Fraud Investigation Office—
(a) on receipt of a report of the Registrar or inspector
under Section 208;
(b) on intimation of a special resolution passed
by a company that its affairs are required to be
investigated;
(c) in the public interest; or
(d) on request from any Department of the Central
Government or a State Government, the Central
Government may, by order, assign the investigation
into the affairs of the said company to the Serious
Fraud Investigation Office and its Director, may
designate such number of inspectors, as he
may consider necessary for the purpose of such
investigation.
(2) to (5)…………………………………………
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), offence covered
under section 447 of this Act shall be cognizable and no
person accused of any offence under those sections shall
be released on bail or on his own bond unless—
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 505
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen
years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released
on bail, if the Special Court so directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take
cognizance of any offence referred to this subsection
except upon a complaint in writing made by—
(i) the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government authorised,
by a general or special order in writing in this behalf
by that Government.
(7) to (17)………………………………………..”
12. Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 pertains to the “Punishment
for fraud” which reads as under: -
“447. Punishment for fraud. —
Without prejudice to any liability including repayment of
any debt under this Actor any other law for the time being
in force, any person who is found to be guilty of fraud, 1
[involving an amount of at least ten lakh rupees or one per
cent. of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower]
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months but which may extend to
ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be
less than the amount involved in the fraud, but which may
extend to three times the amount involved in the fraud:
Provided that where the fraud in question involves public
interest, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than
three years.
506 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Provided further that where the fraud involves an amount
less than ten lakh rupees or one per cent. of the turnover
of the company, whichever is lower, and does not involve
public interest, any person guilty of such fraud shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to five years or with fine which may extend to fifty lakh
rupees or with both.
Explanation. —For the purposes of this section—
(i) “fraud”, in relation to affairs of a company or any body
corporate, includes any act, omission, concealment
of any fact or abuse of position committed by any
person or any other person with the connivance in
any manner, with intent to deceive, to gain undue
advantage from, or to injure the interests of, the
company or its shareholders or its creditors or any
other person, whether or not there is any wrongful
gain or wrongful loss;
(ii) “wrongful gain” means the gain by unlawful means
of property to which the person gaining is not legally
entitled;
(iii) “wrongful loss” means the loss by unlawful means of
property to which the person losing is legally entitled.”
13. Section 82 of Cr.P.C., 1973 pertains to the “Proclamation for person
absconding”, relevant part thereof reads as under: -
“82. Proclamation for person absconding. —
(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking
evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant
has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing
himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such
Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him
to appear at a specified place and at a specified time
not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such
proclamation.
(2) to (5)…………………………………”
14. Section 204 of Cr.P.C., 1973 pertains to the “Issue of process”,
relevant part thereof reads as under: -
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 507
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
“204. Issue of process. —
(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of
an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and
the case appears to be—
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons
for the attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he
thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be
brought or to appear at a certain time before such
Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some
other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(2) to (5)………………………………….”
15. Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 pertains to the “Direction for grant of
bail to person apprehending arrest”, relevant part thereof reads as
under: -
“438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending
arrest. —
When any person has reason to believe that he may be
arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-
bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the
Court of Session for a direction under this section; and
that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of
such arrest, he shall be released on bail; and that Court
may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following
factors, namely:-
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation.;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the
fact as to whether he has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect
of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the
applicant to flee from justice; and
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having
him so arrested,
508 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim
order for the grant of anticipatory bail:
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may
be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order
under this sub-section or has rejected the application for
grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-
charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the
applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in
such application.
(1A) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-
section(1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less
than seven days notice, together with a copy of such
order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the
Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public
Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when
the application shall be finally heard by the Court.
(1B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory
bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the
application and passing of final order by the Court, if on
an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the
Court considers such presence necessary in the interest
of justice.
(2) to (4)………………………………”
LEGAL POSITION:
16. Now, as explicitly clear from the bare reading of Section 204 of
the Code, when the Court taking cognizance of an offence, is of
the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the
complaint, and the case appears to be a warrant case, the Court
has a discretion either to issue a warrant, or, summons for causing
the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before the
Court (if the Court does not have the jurisdiction, to appear before
the Court having jurisdiction). It is well settled proposition of law
that in complaint cases, when a warrant or summons issued by the
Court for bringing the accused before it, is not executed, and if the
Court is satisfied that the person will not voluntarily appear in the
Court; or the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 509
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
him with a summons; or when it is considered that the person could
harm someone if not placed into custody immediately, the concerned
Court could issue non-bailable warrant to bring him to the Court.
17. A very pertinent discussion and observations made by a three Judge
Bench of this Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and
Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others,1 in this regard may
be reproduced hereinbelow: -
“49. In State of U.P. v. Poosu [(1976) 3 SCC 1: 1976 SCC
(Cri) 368] at SCC p. 5, para 13 the Court observed:
“13. … Whether in the circumstances of the case,
the attendance of the accused-respondent can be
best secured by issuing a bailable warrant or non-
bailable warrant, is a matter which rests entirely in
the discretion of the Court. Although, the discretion is
exercised judicially, it is not possible to computerise
and reduce into immutable formulae the diverse
considerations on the basis of which this discretion
is exercised. Broadly speaking, the court would take
into account the various factors such as,
the nature and seriousness of the offence,
the character of the evidence, circumstances
peculiar to the accused, possibility of his
absconding, larger interest of the public and
State. [See State v. Capt. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962
SC 253 at p. 255, para 3.]
50 & 51……….
52. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the
interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both
are extremely important for the survival of a civilised society.
Sometimes in the larger interest of the public and the State
it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an
individual for a certain period, only then the non-bailable
warrants should be issued.
1 (2007) 12 SCC 1
510 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
When non-bailable warrants should be issued
53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person
to court when summons or bailable warrants would be
unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when:
• it is reasonable to believe that the person will not
voluntarily appear in court; or
• the police authorities are unable to find the person
to serve him with a summon; or
• it is considered that the person could harm someone
if not placed into custody immediately.”
18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this Court has
consistently emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted
as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences,
involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial
crimes. In P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement,2 it
was observed as under: -
“Grant of anticipatory bail in exceptional cases
69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the
investigation to secure not only the presence of the
accused but several other purposes. Power under Section
438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to
be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail
should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial
discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly
exercised after application of mind as to the nature and
gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing
justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case
for grant of anticipatory bail….
70. ……………………………….
71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure prescribed by law. However, the
power conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India
is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the
2 (2019) 9 SCC 24
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 511
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
Article i.e. “…except according to a procedure prescribed
by law”. In State of M.P. v. Ram KishnaBalothia [State of
M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221: 1995
SCC (Cri) 439] , the Supreme Court held that the right of
anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India and held as under: (SCC p. 226, para 7)
“7. … We find it difficult to accept the contention that
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an
integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was
no provision similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal
Procedure Code. The Law Commission in its 41st
Report recommended introduction of a provision for
grant of anticipatory bail. It observed:
‘We agree that this would be a useful advantage.
Though we must add that it is in very exceptional
cases that such power should be exercised.’
In the light of this recommendation, Section 438 was
incorporated, for the first time, in the Criminal Procedure
Code of 1973. Looking to the cautious recommendation
of the Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory
bail is conferred only on a Court of Session or the High
Court. Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter
of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long
after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be
considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the
Constitution. And its non-application to a certain special
category of offences cannot be considered as violative
of Article 21.
(emphasis supplied)
72. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent
behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard
the individual›s personal liberty and to protect him from the
possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to
unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also
keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence
against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is
at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be
512 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
established between the two rights—safeguarding the
personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It
cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would
amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
73. to 76………………………………
77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
[Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,
(2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other
judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash
Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar,
(2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme
Court held as under: (SCC p. 386, para 19)
“19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a
serious offence are required to be satisfied and
further while granting such relief, the court must
record the reasons therefor. 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. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T.
Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran,
(2007) 4 SCC 434: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345], State of
Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain
[State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd.
S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal
[Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008)
13 SCC 305: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1].)”
Economic offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases
of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a
different class as they affect the economic fabric of the
society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar
Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 513
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
(1998) 2 SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held
that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to
anticipatory bail.”
19. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,3
it was observed as under: -
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need
to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies
and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed
seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing
serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility
of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public/State and other
similar considerations.”
20. In Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,4 it
was observed as under: -
“23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country
has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes,
which has affected the fibre of the country’s economic
structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious
repercussions on the development of the country as a
whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal
[(1987) 2 SCC 364: 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while
considering a request of the prosecution for adducing
additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC
p. 371, para 5)
3 (2013) 7 SCC 439
4 (2013) 7 SCC 466
514 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“5. … The entire community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders who ruin the economy of the
State are not brought to book. A murder may be
committed in the heat of moment upon passions
being aroused. An economic offence is committed
with cool calculation and deliberate design with an
eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence
to the community. A disregard for the interest of
the community can be manifested only at the cost
of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in
the system to administer justice in an even-handed
manner without fear of criticism from the quarters
which view white-collar crimes with a permissive
eye unmindful of the damage done to the national
economy and national interest.””
21. Recently in Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and
Another,5 a very pertinent observations have been made with regard
to the powers of the Court to grant anticipatory bail under Section
438 of CrPC. It has been observed that -
“9. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing
with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the
last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest
is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, 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, Cr. PC is an exceptional power and should
be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter
of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not
be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or
personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision
of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J.Mannan & Anr.4).
10. When a Court grants anticipatory bail what it actually
does is only to make an order that in the event of arrest,
the arrestee shall be released on bail, subject to the terms
5 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 282
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 515
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
and conditions. Taking note of the fact the said power is to
be exercised in exceptional circumstances and that it may
cause some hinderance to the normal flow of investigation
method when called upon to exercise the power under
Section 438, Cr.PC, courts must keep reminded of the
position that law aides only the abiding and certainly not
its resistant. By saying so, we mean that a person, having
subjected to investigation on a serious offence and upon
making out a case, is included in a charge sheet or even
after filing of a refer report, later, in accordance with law,
the Court issues a summons to a person, he is bound
to submit himself to the authority of law. It only means
that though he will still be at liberty, rather, in his right,
to take recourse to the legal remedies available only
in accordance with law, but not in its defiance. We will
dilate this discussion with reference to the factual matrix
of this case. However, we think that before dealing with
the same, a small deviation to have a glance at the scope
and application of the provisions under Section 82, Cr.PC
will not be inappropriate.
11 to 24…………………………
25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory
bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was
held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch
of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It
cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be
left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court
depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court
concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim
protection or protection to the accused in serious cases
may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the
investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to
tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be
understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an
interim protection pending consideration of such application
as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of
an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that
such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any
516 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the
applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power.
Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to
grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the
interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying
orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant.”
22. In Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Another,6 this
Court, disapproving the Order passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the accused though the proceedings under Section
82/83 CrPC were initiated, observed as under: -
“10…………………………………
10.1……………………………….
10.2. Despite the above observations on merits and despite
the fact that it was brought to the notice of the High Court
that Respondent 2-accused is absconding and even the
proceedings under Sections 82/83CrPC have been initiated
as far back as on 10-1-2019, the High Court has just
ignored the aforesaid relevant aspects and has granted
anticipatory bail to Respondent 2-accused by observing
that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business
transaction. The specific allegations of cheating, etc.
which came to be considered by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by the High
Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum
of initiation of proceedings under Sections 82/83CrPC by
simply observing that “be that as it may”. The aforesaid
relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to
have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have
been considered by the High Court very seriously and
not casually.
10.3……………………………….
11. Thus, the High Court has committed an error in granting
anticipatory bail to Respondent 2-accused ignoring the
proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC.”
6 (2022) 14 SCC 516
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 517
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
ANALYSIS:
23. In view of the above settled legal position, it is no more res integra
that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep
rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore
such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as
grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as
a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health
of the country. The law aids only the abiding and certainly not its
resistants. When after the investigation, a chargesheet is submitted
in the court, or in a complaint case, summons or warrant is issued
to the accused, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of
law. If he is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is
concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he
must not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly
when the Court taking cognizance has found him prima facie
involved in serious economic offences or heinous offences. In such
cases when the court has reason to believe that the person against
whom the warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing
himself so that warrant could not be executed, the concerned court
would be perfectly justified in initiating the proclamation proceedings
against him under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The High Courts should
also consider the factum of issuance of non-bailable warrants and
initiation of proclamation proceedings seriously and not casually,
while considering the anticipatory bail application of such accused.
24. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs
had directed the Appellant – SFIO to investigate into the affairs of
125 companies and on the completion of the investigation, the SFIO
had lodged the private complaint before the Special Court against
the accused including the respondents, alleging various serious
offences under the Companies Act including Section 447 thereof and
the offences under the IPC. It is pertinent to note that as per sub-
section (6) of Section 212 the offence covered under Section 447
of the Companies Act has been made cognizable and the person
accused of the said offence is not entitled to be released on bail or
on his bond, unless twin conditions mentioned therein are satisfied.
The twin conditions are: - (i) that a Public Prosecutor should be given
an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii)
where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
518 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. These twin conditions are mandatory in nature. A three
Judge Bench in case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs.
Union of India and Others,7 while examining the validity of similar
conditions contained in Section 45 of the PMLA Act, had held that
the restrictive conditions of bail are mandatory in nature. They are
applicable even in the anticipatory bail proceedings.
25. In a recent case in Union of India through Assistant Director vs.
Kanhaiya Prasad,8 it has been observed by this Court that cryptic
orders granting bail without adverting to the facts or the consideration
of such restrictive conditions with regard to the bail are perverse and
liable to be set aside.
26. Coming back to the facts of the present case, though the Special
Court had taken cognizance of the alleged offences under the
Companies Act including under Section 447 and other offences
under the IPC, and even though the non-bailable warrants were
issued from time to time against the Respondents, and even though
the proclamation proceedings were initiated against them, the High
Court has passed the impugned orders. The said Orders have been
passed in utter disregard of the mandatory conditions contained in
Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, and also ignoring the conduct
of the respondents-accused. Such orders being in the teeth of the
legal position settled by this Court, as also in the teeth of the Section
212(6) of Companies Act, would fall into the category of perverse
orders and therefore untenable at law.
27. In none of the impugned orders, the High Court has bothered to look
into the proceedings conducted, and the detailed orders passed by
the Special Court for securing the presence of the Respondents –
Accused. It cannot be gainsaid that the judicial time of every court,
even of Magistrate’s Court is as precious and valuable as that of the
High Courts and the Supreme Court. The accused are duty bound
to cooperate the trial courts in proceeding further with the cases and
bound to remain present in the Court as and when required by the
Court. Not allowing the Courts to proceed further with the cases by
avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders
7 (2023) 12 SCC 1
8 2025 SCC Online SC 306
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 519
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
of the Court, and trying to delay the proceedings by hook or crook,
would certainly amount to interfering with and causing obstruction
in the administration of justice. As held in Srikant Upadhay’s case
(supra), when warrant of arrest is issued or proclamation proceedings
are initiated, the accused would not be entitled to invoke, except
in exceptional cases, the extraordinary power of the court to grant
anticipatory bail. Granting anticipatory bail is certainly not the rule. The
respondents-accused, who have continuously avoided to follow the
due process of law, by avoiding attendance in the Court, by concealing
themselves and thereby attempting to derail the proceedings, would
not be entitled to the anticipatory bail. If the Rule of Law is to prevail
in the society, every person would have to abide by the law, respect
the law and follow the due process of law.
28. A faint attempt was made by the learned counsels for the Respondents
to rely upon the decision in case of Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate
of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office,9 to submit that if the
respondents were not arrested by the SFIO during the course of
investigation till the filing of the complaint, the Special Court while
taking cognizance of the alleged offences should have issued a
summons only to the respondents-accused and not a warrant. The
said submission is bereft of merits. As discussed earlier, as per
Section 204, Cr.P.C. in a complaint case, which appears to be a
warrant case, the Court taking cognizance of the offence, has the
discretion to issue warrant or summons as it thinks fit, for causing the
accused to be brought or to appear before it. As held by three Judge
Bench of this Court in case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another
(supra), the Court is empowered to issue even a non-bailable warrant
to bring a person to the Court, when it is reasonable for the Court to
believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in the Court or the
police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a
summons. There cannot be a strait jacket formula, as sought to be
submitted by the learned advocates for the Respondents that the
Court must first issue a summons even in case of a warrant case,
irrespective of the gravity or seriousness of the offence. As well
settled by now, whether the attendance of the accused can be best
secured by issuing a bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant, would
9 (2024) 7 SCC 61
520 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be a matter, which entirely rests at the discretion of the concerned
Court.10 Although the discretion should be exercised judiciously,
diverse considerations such as the nature and seriousness of the
offence, the circumstances peculiar to the accused, possibility of his
concealing or absconding, larger interest of public and state etc. also
must be seriously considered by the court.
29. In the instant case, the Special Court considering the seriousness of
the alleged offences had initially issued bailable warrants, however,
the Respondents kept on avoiding the execution of such warrants
and did not appear before the Special Court though fully aware
about the pendency of the complaint proceedings against them.
The Special Court therefore had to pass detailed orders from time
to time for the issuance of non-bailable warrants, and thereafter had
also initiated the Proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of the
Code, for requiring respondents to appear before it. The High Court
however without paying any heed to the proceedings conducted by
the Special Court against the respondents, and ignoring the well
settled legal position, granted anticipatory bail to the Respondents
vide the impugned orders. As discussed earlier, the said Orders being
perverse and untenable at law, cannot be allowed to be sustained,
and deserve to be set aside.
30. In that view of the matter, the respective impugned orders dated
29.03.2023 and 20.04.2023 passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the concerned accused who are the respondents
in these Appeals, are set aside. The respondents-accused are
directed to surrender themselves before the Special Court in one
week from today. It is needless to mention that their bail applications
as and when filed by them shall be decided by the Special Court
in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
31. The Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.13956/2023, SLP (Crl.)
No.14033/2023, SLP (Crl.) No. 15318/2023, SLP (Crl.) No.15322/2023,
SLP (Crl.) No.13960/2023, SLP (Crl.) No.15333/2023, SLP (Crl.)
No.14128/2023, SLP (Crl.) No.13965/2023, SLP (Crl.) No.13975/2023,
SLP (Crl.) No. 13983/2023, SLP (Crl.) No.13976/2023, SLP (Crl.) No.
10 State of U.P. vs. Poosu (1976) 3 SCC 1 (Para-49)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 521
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
13971/2023, SLP (Crl.) No. 15311/2023 and SLP (Crl.) No.13978/2023
are allowed. However, the Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.13973/2023 (Akshat Singh) & SLP (Crl.) No.13974/2023 (Naveen
Kumar) and SLP (Crl.) No.15326/2023 (Mahesh Dutt Sharma) are
dismissed accordingly.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Serious economic offences"Sign in to search