LexSERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE versus ADITYA SARDA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.