Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale held that an accused who evades the law or obstructs the execution of warrants is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases involving serious economic or heinous offences. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of  Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda (2025).

What was the Background of Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda Case? 

• The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), a statutory body constituted under Section 211 of the Companies Act 2013, was directed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to investigate the affairs of 125 Companies of Adarsh Group. 
• Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Limited (ACCSL), a Multi-State Credit Cooperative Society founded by Mukesh Modi, had 800+ branches, 20 lakh members, 3.7 lakh advisors, and Rs.9253 crores of outstanding deposits as of May 2018. 
• Upon investigation, SFIO found that funds amounting to Rs.1700 crores were illegally loaned by ACCSL to 70 Adarsh Group Companies controlled by Mukesh Modi, Rahul Modi, and their associates. 
• These illegal loans were contrary to the established position that companies cannot be members of a multi-state credit cooperative society and therefore cannot receive loans from such societies. 
• The investigation revealed that the total outstanding balance of such illegal loans was Rs.4120 crores as of March 2018. 
• These loans were allegedly obtained on the basis of forged financial documents submitted by the directors of the Companies belonging to the Adarsh Group. 
• SFIO filed a Criminal Complaint (COMA/5/2019) against 181 accused in the Special Court at Gurugram for various offences under the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code. 
• The Special Court took cognizance of all the alleged offences and issued bailable warrants against all the accused including the respondents. 
• The respondents-accused allegedly evaded the execution of warrants by hiding themselves and not making themselves available at their given addresses, leading the Special Court to issue non-bailable warrants and initiate proclamation proceedings against them. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that when a person creates hindrances in the execution of warrants or conceals themselves, they are not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the Court has found them prima facie involved in serious economic offences. 
• The Court noted that the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to the respondents in utter disregard of the mandatory conditions contained in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act and ignoring the conduct of the respondents-accused. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that every person must abide by the law, respect the law, and follow due process, stating that "the law aids only the abiding and certainly not its resistant's." 
• The Court observed that judicial time of every court, including Magistrate's Courts, is as precious and valuable as that of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. 
• It held that avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying court orders, and delaying proceedings amounts to interfering with and causing obstruction in the administration of justice. 
• The Court found that the High Court failed to consider the proceedings conducted and the detailed orders passed by the Special Court for securing the presence of the Respondents-Accused. 
• The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's orders were perverse and untenable at law, as they ignored well-settled legal positions regarding anticipatory bail in cases of serious economic offences. 

What is Section 482 of  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (BNSS)?  

• Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 provides for anticipatory bail, allowing a person who fears arrest for a non-bailable offence to apply to the High Court or Court of Session for pre-arrest bail. 
• This provision replaced Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when the BNSS came into effect on July 1, 2024. 
• Under Section 482(2), courts may impose conditions including mandatory availability for police interrogation, prohibition against influencing witnesses, and restriction on leaving India without court permission. 
• The concept of anticipatory bail evolved from the 41st Law Commission Report, which recognized the need to protect individuals from false implication and disgracement through detention. 
• While Section 482 of BNSS retains the essential framework for anticipatory bail, it omits the factors that courts were previously required to consider under Section 438 of CrPC. 
• Clauses (1A) and (1B) of the former Section 438, which contained special provisions regarding sexual offences, have been omitted in the BNSS framework. 
• Clauses (2), (3), and (4) from the original provision in CrPC have been retained substantially in the same form in Section 482 of BNSS. 
• Under Section 482(3), if a person granted anticipatory bail is arrested without warrant, they shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate decides to issue a warrant, it must be a bailable warrant in conformity with the court's direction.