The Supreme Court recently reiterated that since economic offences are a ‘class apart’, they must be viewed seriously and anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in such cases. .A Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale made the observation while setting aside anticipatory bail granted to various persons accused in the Adarsh Group of Companies scam.The Court said that individuals accused of such offences, especially those who evade the law or obstruct the execution of warrants, should not be granted anticipatory bail. “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 and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country," the judgment read. .By way of background, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) had investigated 125 companies linked to the Adarsh Group, controlled by businessman Mukesh Modi and his associates. The probe was launched under the directions of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It revealed that the Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd (ACCSL), a multi-state credit cooperative society, had illegally disbursed loans worth ₹1,700 crores to its own group companies and other entities, thereby violating regulatory norms.A criminal complaint was filed before the Special Court, Gurugram, against 181 accused, including directors and key functionaries of these companies..The Special Court issued bailable and non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against the accused, but many failed to appear, leading to proclamation proceedings under Section 82 (to declare them absconders) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Their attempts at obtaining anticipatory bail from the Special Court failed. However, they secured anticipatory bail from the Punjab and Haryana High Court between March and April 2023. This prompted the SFIO to move the Supreme Court challenging the orders granting anticipatory bail. On April 9, the top court set aside the High Court orders. .Anticipatory Bail Not a Right in Grave Economic OffencesThe Supreme Court emphasised that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in cases where the accused has avoided summons and concealed their presence to obstruct legal proceedings.“The law aids only the abiding and certainly not its resistants ... When a person is evading the process of law after cognisance is taken and warrants are issued, the privilege of anticipatory bail should not be extended to them," the Court said. .Twin Conditions for Bail Under Companies Act Must Be MetThe Court reaffirmed that offences under Section 447 are “cognizable” and subject to “twin conditions” for bail under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act.The twin conditions here refer to (i) opportunity for the public prosecutor to oppose bail and (ii) reasonable grounds for the court to believe that the accused is not guilty and not likely to reoffend.“These twin conditions are mandatory in nature,” the Court reiterated.The Court also noted that in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, similar twin conditions in the Prevention of Money Launder Act (PMLA) were upheld. "They are applicable even in the anticipatory bail proceedings," the Court observed further. .High Court are "Perverse and Untenable"The Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to the accused, despite repeated issuance of non-bailable warrants and the initiation of proclamation proceedings by the Special Court.“Such orders being in the teeth of the settled legal position...would fall into the category of perverse orders and therefore untenable at law,” the judgment held.It was noted that the High Court had failed to properly consider the detailed proceedings of the Special Court, thereby undermining the due process of 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. 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," the Supreme Court said. .Evasion of Law is Obstruction of JusticeThe judgment further underscored that non-compliance with court orders and attempts to evade legal proceedings amounted to 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,” the Court stated.It added that the grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances “is certainly not the rule,” especially when the accused have shown no intent to cooperate with the trial court..The Court proceeded to allow the SFIO's appeals and directed the accused to surrender before the Special Court within a week. Their bail applications, the Bench added, would be decided in accordance with law.However, the pleas challenging anticipatory bail given to certain accused, namely Akshat Singh, Naveen Kumar, and Mahesh Dutt Sharma were dismissed as the lower court had granted them anticipatory bail. .The SFIO was represented by Advocates Padmesh Mishra, Hari Kishan, Sudarshan Lamba, and Amrish Kumar.Akshat Singh was represented by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra. .Another accused was represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave with Advocate Aditya Samaddar. .Others accused were represented by Advocates 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 and Davesh Bhatia..[Read Judgment]
