The Supreme Court held that an accused person, who is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is absconding from trial proceedings, is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail.
"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,"
Accused Who's Absconding Or Obstructing Warrant Executions Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail
The Supreme Court held that an accused person, who is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is absconding from trial proceedings, is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail.
"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 Supreme Court, while cancelling their bail, noted that the Respondents have avoided the execution of non-bailable warrants even after their anticipatory bail applications were rejected latest in 2022. It was only in 2023 that they were granted bail by the High Court. It held that in cases where a warrant of arrest is issued or proclamation proceedings are initiated, the extraordinary power to grant bail cannot be invoked.
In view of this observation, the Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Respondents to surrender within 1 week.
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.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale, which pronounced the judgment, further noted:
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 Court noted that the High Court passed orders utterly disregarding the mandatory conditions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, which lays down twin conditions on bail and the conduct of the Respondents. It also noted that in none of the orders passed by the High Court, it bother to look at the orders passed by the Special Court, such as issuing non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings etc for securing the presence of the Respondents.
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 with 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.
In this case, allegations of economic offences were made against the Respondents, Companies of Adarsh Group, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs directed the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to investigate them for the various offences under the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013.
Upon investigation, it was found that funds to the tune of Rs.1700 crores were given by the Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Limited (ACCSL), a Multi-State Credit Cooperative Society, as illegal loans to its own controlled 70 Adarsh Group of Companies (CUIs) and certain other companies belonging to the other groups of persons.
It was found contrary to settled the position that a company could not be a member of a multistate credit cooperative society and therefore loans could not have been given to such companies by the ACCSL. These loads were obtained on the basis of forged financial documents.
Case Details: SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE vs ADITYA SARDA
