Supreme Court Emphasizes Caution in Granting Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offences: SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) vs. Aditya Sarda, decided on April 9, 2025, addressed the issue of granting anticipatory bail in serious economic offences. The Apex Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, especially when the accused are evading legal proceedings.

Facts of the Case 

The case involved the Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Limited (ACCSL), a multi-state cooperative society managed by Mukesh Modi and his associates. The society collected deposits from its members, primarily individuals from lower to middle-income groups.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs directed the SFIO to investigate 125 companies associated with the Adarsh Group, along with 20 other companies and two individuals. The investigation revealed that ACCSL had disbursed approximately ₹1,700 crores in unauthorized loans to affiliated companies using forged financial documents.

Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed in the Special Court, Gurugram, implicating 181 individuals, including the respondents in the current appeals. The respondents avoided the execution of bailable warrants, leading the Special Court to issue non-bailable warrants and initiate proceedings under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

While the Special Court denied anticipatory bail to 14 accused individuals, the High Court granted them relief. Conversely, two individuals who were granted bail by the Special Court had their bail applications rejected by the High Court.

Legal Provisions:

Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 pertains to punishment for fraud involving amounts exceeding ₹10 lakhs or 1% of the company’s turnover. It prescribes imprisonment ranging from six months to ten years and fines not less than the amount involved, which may extend up to three times the amount involved in the fraud.

Section 82 of CrPC: Relates to the proclamation for a person absconding.

Section 438 of CrPC: Deals with the direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

The Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and should be granted sparingly, particularly in cases involving serious economic offences. The Court emphasized that individuals who evade legal proceedings and obstruct the administration of justice are not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The Court stated, “Granting anticipatory bail is certainly not the rule. The respondent 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.”

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision in SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that economic offenders are brought to justice. It reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, especially when the accused are actively evading legal proceedings.

 

TRISHA SAXENA

SENIOR LEGAL ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled “What is Bail? Complete Guide to Bail Process & Legal Rights” | What is Bail? Complete Guide to Bail Process & Legal Rights in India” Legal Tips can be viewed at the link below: