Accused Who Creates Hindrances In Execution Of Warrant Or Is Concealing Himself Should Not Be Granted Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court allowed Appeals filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office against the accused persons who were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.
The Supreme Court while directing the accused persons to surrender, remarked that the accused who creates hindrances in the execution of warrant or is concealing himself should not be granted anticipatory bail.
The Court was deciding a batch of 16 Appeals filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the accused persons who were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “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.”
The Bench said that 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. It added that 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.
“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”, it also remarked.
Advocate Padmesh Mishra represented the Appellant while Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave, Nadkarni, and Somayajulu represented the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) vide its Order, directed the Appellant i.e., SFIO to inquire and investigate into the affairs of 125 Companies of Adarsh Group (CIUs). It further ordered to investigate into the affairs of 20 other companies and two persons. The SFIO, on completion of the investigation, submitted an Investigation report to MCA, recommending prosecution against the Respondents for the various offences under the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Accordingly, a Criminal Complaint was filed in the Special Court, impleading 181 accused including the Respondents. The Special Court took cognizance and summoned the accused persons.
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, it also initiated proclamation of offenders proceedings against the accused. The proceedings against the accused persons were pending before the Special Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “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.”
The Court said that 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”, it added.
The Court further noted that 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 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”, it emphasised.
The Court also observed that granting anticipatory bail is certainly not the rule and that 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. … 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”, it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the High Court’s Order, and directed the accused persons to surrender themselves before the Special Court.
Cause Title- Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 477)
Appearance:
Appellant: AORs Sudarshan Lamba, Amrish Kumar, Advocates Padmesh Mishra, and Hari Kishan.
Respondent: Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave, Nadkarni, Somayajulu, AORs Abhishek Singh, Umang Shankar, Aditya Samaddar, Sumit Kumar, Gautam Awasthi, Upendra Pratap Singh, Rohan Ganpathy, Elanchezhiyan, Rajat Mittal, Davesh Bhatia, Advocates Amit Bhalla, Aniruddh Joshi, Arjun Sharma, Jawaid Hussain Khan, and Sadapurna Mukherjee.