The Supreme Court of India has canceled anticipatory bail granted to several accused in the ₹1,700 crore Adarsh Group of Companies scam, stressing that economic offenses are a class apart and must be dealt with seriously.A Bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale delivered the verdict while allowing appeals filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to key accused.
“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 offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country,”
– Supreme Court Bench
BACKGROUND: ₹1,700 CR FINANCIAL SCAM
The case pertains to an SFIO probe into Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd (ACCSL) and 125 linked companies controlled by businessman Mukesh Modi and his associates. The investigation revealed illegal disbursal of loans amounting to over ₹1,700 crore to group entities and shell firms, violating financial regulations.
A complaint was filed before the Special Court in Gurugram, naming 181 accused, including directors and officials. Despite the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants, several accused failed to appear, prompting proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC.
When the Special Court denied anticipatory bail, the accused moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which granted relief between March and April 2023 — a move the SFIO challenged before the Supreme Court.
SC: NO BAIL FOR LAW EVADERS
The Supreme Court noted that the accused had wilfully avoided summons and obstructed legal proceedings. It reiterated that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right in such circumstances:
“The law aids only the abiding and certainly not its resistant… When a person is evading the process of law after cognizance is taken and warrants are issued, the privilege of anticipatory bail should not be extended to them.”
TWIN BAIL CONDITIONS UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
The Court stressed the mandatory nature of the “twin conditions” for bail under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, applicable even to anticipatory bail under Section 447:
- Opportunity to the public prosecutor to oppose bail
- Court’s satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offences
“These twin conditions are mandatory in nature,”– Supreme Court
The Bench also referred to the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India ruling, where similar conditions under PMLA were upheld.
“They are applicable even in the anticipatory bail proceedings.”
HC ORDERS PERVERSE, SAYS SC
The Supreme Court severely criticized the High Court for granting bail without examining the Special Court’s findings or the accused’s continued non-cooperation:
“Such orders being in the teeth of the settled legal position… would fall into the category of perverse orders and therefore untenable at law.”
“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.”
EVASION = OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
“Disobeying the orders of the Court and trying to delay the proceedings by hook or crook certainly amounts to interference with the administration of justice,” Supreme Court Bench
The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail “is certainly not the rule”, particularly when the accused obstructs justice.
SC VERDICT: SURRENDER WITHIN A WEEK
Allowing the SFIO’s appeals, the Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the Special Court within one week. Their bail pleas will be considered afresh as per law.
However, anticipatory bail granted to Akshat Singh, Naveen Kumar, and Mahesh Dutt Sharma was not interfered with, since it had been granted by the trial court.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
- SFIO: Advocates Padmesh Mishra, Hari Kishan, Sudarshan Lamba, Amrish Kumar
- Akshat Singh: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra
- Other accused: Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave with Advocate Aditya Samaddar
- Additional counsel: Abhishek Singh, Amit Bhalla, Aniruddh Joshi, Umang Shankar, Sumit Kumar, Gautam Awasthi, Arjun Sharma, Upendra Pratap Singh, Rohan Ganpathy, Jawaid Hussain Khan, V. Elanchezhiyan, Rajat Mittal, Sadapurna Mukherjee, Davesh Bhatia
