# Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 477
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-04-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1872 of 2025
- **Bench:** Bela M. Trivedi, Prasanna B. Varale
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/serious-fraud-investigation-office-v-aditya-sarda-38836
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

Matter pertains to the sustainability of orders passed by the High
Court granting anticipatory bail to respondents accused of serious
economic offences, and avoiding execution of summons or warrants,
disobeying the orders of the Court.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.82, 204, 482 -
Anticipatory bail - Avoiding execution of summons or
warrants - Appellant-SFIO lodged a complaint before the
Special Court against the respondents-accused, alleging
serious offences under the Companies Act and IPC - Special
court took cognizance of offences and summoned the
respondents by issuing bailable warrants - Respondents did
not allow bailable warrants to be executed on them - Issuance
of non-bailable warrants against the respondents by the
Special Court and also proclamation of offenders proceedings
initiated against some of the respondents - High Court
granted anticipatory bail to the respondents - In case of two
respondents, High Court rejected petition seeking cancellation
of anticipatory bail granted by Special Court - Sustainability:
Held: Orders being perverse and untenable at law, cannot be
allowed to be sustained - Respondents avoided the execution
of the non-bailable warrants even after their anticipatory bail
applications were rejected by Special Court - If accused is
creating hindrances in execution of warrants/concealing himself
and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be
granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when court
taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious
economic offences or heinous offences - High Courts should
* Author
486
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
also consider the factum of issuance of non-bailable warrants
and initiation of proclamation proceedings seriously and not
casually, while considering the anticipatory bail application of
such accused - Though the Special Court had taken cognizance
of the alleged offences under the Companies Act including
u/s.447 and other offences under the IPC, and even though the
non-bailable warrants were issued from time to time against the
respondents, as also the proclamation proceedings were initiated
against them, the High Court passed the impugned orders, in
utter disregard of the mandatory conditions contained in s.212(6)
and also ignoring the conduct of the respondents - In none of
the impugned orders, the High Court bothered to look into the
proceedings conducted, and the detailed orders passed by the
Special Court for securing the presence of the respondentsaccused - 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 - 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 - 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 - Granting anticipatory bail is certainly
not the rule - Respondents 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 -
Thus, the impugned orders passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the respondents set aside - Companies Act,
2013 - ss.212(6), 447. [Paras 9, 23, 24, 26-30]
Companies Act, 2013 - ss. 212(6), 447 - Investigation into
affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office -
Punishment for fraud - Twin conditions for bail:
Held: As per s.212(6), offence covered u/s.447 has been made
cognizable and the person accused of the said offence is not entitled
to be released on bail, unless twin conditions mentioned therein are
satisfied - Said twin co

## Text

_Characters 0–39,833 of 70,165. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39833 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 485 : 2025 INSC 477
Serious Fraud Investigation Office
v.
Aditya Sarda
(Criminal Appeal No. 1872 of 2025)
09 April 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the sustainability of orders passed by the High
Court granting anticipatory bail to respondents accused of serious
economic offences, and avoiding execution of summons or warrants,
disobeying the orders of the Court.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.82, 204, 482 -
Anticipatory bail - Avoiding execution of summons or
warrants - Appellant-SFIO lodged a complaint before the
Special Court against the respondents-accused, alleging
serious offences under the Companies Act and IPC - Special
court took cognizance of offences and summoned the
respondents by issuing bailable warrants - Respondents did
not allow bailable warrants to be executed on them - Issuance
of non-bailable warrants against the respondents by the
Special Court and also proclamation of offenders proceedings
initiated against some of the respondents - High Court
granted anticipatory bail to the respondents - In case of two
respondents, High Court rejected petition seeking cancellation
of anticipatory bail granted by Special Court - Sustainability:
Held: Orders being perverse and untenable at law, cannot be
allowed to be sustained - Respondents avoided the execution
of the non-bailable warrants even after their anticipatory bail
applications were rejected by Special Court - If accused is
creating hindrances in execution of warrants/concealing himself
and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be
granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when court
taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious
economic offences or heinous offences - High Courts should
* Author
486
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
also consider the factum of issuance of non-bailable warrants
and initiation of proclamation proceedings seriously and not
casually, while considering the anticipatory bail application of
such accused - Though the Special Court had taken cognizance
of the alleged offences under the Companies Act including
u/s.447 and other offences under the IPC, and even though the
non-bailable warrants were issued from time to time against the
respondents, as also the proclamation proceedings were initiated
against them, the High Court passed the impugned orders, in
utter disregard of the mandatory conditions contained in s.212(6)
and also ignoring the conduct of the respondents - In none of
the impugned orders, the High Court bothered to look into the
proceedings conducted, and the detailed orders passed by the
Special Court for securing the presence of the respondentsaccused - 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 - 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 - 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 - Granting anticipatory bail is certainly
not the rule - Respondents 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 -
Thus, the impugned orders passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the respondents set aside - Companies Act,
2013 - ss.212(6), 447. [Paras 9, 23, 24, 26-30]
Companies Act, 2013 - ss. 212(6), 447 - Investigation into
affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office -
Punishment for fraud - Twin conditions for bail:
Held: As per s.212(6), offence covered u/s.447 has been made
cognizable and the person accused of the said offence is not entitled
to be released on bail, unless twin conditions mentioned therein are
satisfied - Said twin conditions are mandatory in nature that a Public
Prosecutor to be given an opportunity to oppose the application
for such release; and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
487
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail. [Para 24]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.204 - Issue of process -
Summons case - Warrant case - Power of the court to issue
bailable or non-bailable warrants:
Held: There cannot be a strait jacket formula that the Court must
first issue a summons even in case of a warrant case, irrespective of
the gravity or seriousness of the offence - Whether the attendance
of the accused can be best secured by issuing a bailable warrant
or non-bailable warrant, would be a matter, which entirely rests
at the discretion of the court - Although the discretion should be
exercised judiciously, diverse considerations such as the nature
and seriousness of the offence, the circumstances peculiar to the
accused, possibility of his concealing or absconding, larger interest
of public and state etc. also must be seriously considered by the
court. [Para 28]
Case Law Cited
Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and
Others [2007] 10 SCR 847 : (2007) 12 SCC 1; P. Chidambaram
v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019] 12 SCR 172 : (2019) 9 SCC
24; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation
[2013] 3 SCR 547 : (2013) 7 SCC 439; Nimmagadda Prasad v.
Central Bureau of Investigation [2013] 3 SCR 493 : (2013) 7 SCC
466; Srikant Upadhyay and Others v. State of Bihar and Another
[2024] 3 SCR 421 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 282; Prem Shankar
Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another [2021] 6 SCR 1176 : (2022)
14 SCC 516; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of
India and Others [2022] 6 SCR 382 : (2023) 12 SCC 1; Union
of India through Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad [2025] 2
SCR 544 : 2025 SCC Online SC 306; Tarsem Lal v. Directorate
of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office [2024] 6 SCR 864 : (2024)
7 SCC 61 - referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Companies
Act, 2013; Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008; Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002.
488
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Serious economic offences; Anticipatory bail; Proclamation order;
Loss of public funds; Execution of warrants; Twin conditions
of bail; Judicial time of court; Avoiding execution of warrants;
Obstruction in administration of justice; Avoiding attendance in court;
Summons case; Warrants case; Orders perverse and untenable in
law; Serious Fraud Investigation Office; Cognizance of offences;
Bailable warrants; Issuance of non-bailable warrants; Proclamation
of offenders proceedings; Cancellation of anticipatory bail; Nonbailable warrants; Fraud; Public Prosecutor.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1872 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2023 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 17518 of 2022
With
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1875, 1876, 1878, 1879, 1885, 1886, 1888,
1873, 1874, 1877, 1880, 1881, 1882-1883, 1884 and 1887 of 2025.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Amrish Kumar, Sudarshan Lamba, Padmesh Mishra, Hari Kishan,
Abhinav Deshwal, Mt. Vishal Singh.
Advs. for the Respondent:
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Anirudh Joshi, Umang Shankar, Gautam
Awasthi, Aditya Samaddar, Arjun Sharma, Upendra Pratap Singh.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This batch of sixteen Appeals being interconnected with each other
and arising out of the proceedings being CIS No. COMA/5/2019
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
489
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
pending before the Special Judge, Gurugram, are being decided
by this common judgment.
3.
In these cases, there is a brazen attempt made on the part of the
respondents-accused to stall the criminal proceedings initiated against
them, in respect of the serious economic offences allegedly committed
by them, by not respecting the summons/warrants issued by the
Special Court from time to time and thereby causing obstruction in
the administration of justice. A few basic common facts necessary
for deciding the present appeals may be stated as under: -
(i)
The Appellant i.e. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is
a statutory body constituted and established under Section 211
of the Companies Act of 2013. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs
(MCA) vide the order dated 20.06.2018 in exercise of its powers
conferred under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013
and Section 43(2) and (3)(c)(i) of Limited Liability Partnership Act,
2008 directed the SFIO to inquire and investigate into the affairs
of 125 Companies of Adarsh Group (hereinafter referred to as
"CIUs"). On 25.02.2019, the MCA further ordered to investigate
into the affairs of 20 other companies and two persons.
(ii)
On 09.05.2019, the SFIO, on completion of the investigation
submitted an Investigation report to the MCA recommending
prosecution against the respondents for the various offences
under the Companies Act (1956 and 2013) and of the IPC.
Accordingly, on 18.05.2019, a Criminal Complaint being
COMA/5/2019, came to be filed by the SFIO in the Special Court
at Gurugram impleading 181 Accused including the respondents
in the instant Appeals, under Section 439(2) read with Section
436(1)(a), (d) and (2) read with Section 212 of the Companies
Act, 2013, read with Section 621(1) of the Companies Act, 1956,
read with Section 50 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act,
2008, read with Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
seeking taking of cognizance and prosecution of the Accused
named therein for the offences committed by them jointly and
severally, under the various provisions of the Companies Act
and the Indian Penal Code as mentioned therein.
(iii) It has been alleged in the complaint that one Adarsh Credit
Cooperative Society Limited (ACCSL) was a Multi-State
Credit Cooperative Society, founded by one Mukesh Modi,
490
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and was managed and controlled by him and his family and
his associates.
(iv) The said society accepted the deposits from its members, who
were mostly low to middle income individuals. The ACCSL had
800+ branches, 20 lakhs members, 3.7 lakhs advisors and
Rs.9253 crores of outstanding deposits as on 31.05.2018.
It is further alleged that the controllers of the Society i.e.
Mukesh Modi, Rahul Modi and others got incorporated around
125 companies (Adarsh Group of Companies), and started
controlling the said Companies by either becoming themselves
as the directors or making their members and associates as
the directors of the said Companies. On the completion of the
investigation it was found that the funds to the tune of Rs.1700
crores were given by the ACCSL as illegal loans to its own
controlled 70 Adarsh Group of Companies (CUIs) and certain
other companies belonging to the other groups of persons,
contrary to settled the position that a company could not be a
member of a multi-state credit cooperative society and therefore
loans could not have been given to such companies by the
ACCSL. It is further alleged that total amount of Rs.4120 crores
were the outstanding balance as on 31.03.2018 against such
illegal loans given by the ACCSL.
(v)
It is also further alleged by the SFIO that the illegal loans
obtained from ACCSL by the Companies belonging to Adarsh
Group and Ridhi Sidhi Group were on the basis of forged
financial/loan documents submitted/signed by the directors of the
Companies belonging to the Adarsh Group. The said directors
had siphoned off the said funds/loans obtained from the ACCSL
in connivance of the other accused. The directors had signed
off balance sheets of the companies showing the said funds
obtained ACCSL as "loans taken from a financial institution".
(vi) The Special Court vide the detailed Order dated 03.06.2019
took the cognizance of all the offences alleged against the
accused including the respondents, under the Companies Act
and under the IPC, and summoned all the accused including
the respondents herein by issuing bailable warrants in the
sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount with the
direction to appear on 30.07.2019.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
491
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
(vii) There being some clerical/typographical errors found in the
order dated 03.06.2019, the Special Court corrected the
cognizance order vide the order dated 11.07.2019. Since the
respondents-accused allegedly did not allow the said bailable
warrants issued by the Special Court to be executed on them,
by hiding themselves and not making themselves available
at the given residential addresses, in collusion with the
process servers, the Special Court had to issue non-bailable
warrants against the respondents from time to time by passing
detailed orders. In some of the cases, the Special Court also
initiated proclamation of offenders proceedings against the
accused.
4.
The details of the status of each of the respondents and the orders
passed by the Special Court issuing bailable/non-bailable warrants/
initiating proclamation proceedings against them are tabulated
hereunder for the sake of convenience.
ITEM
CASE
WARRANTS
(BAILABLE (BW)
& NON-BAILABLE
(NBW))
PROCLAMATION
PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED
ANTICIPATORY
BAIL (SPECIAL
COURT & HIGH
COURT)
WHETHER
S 447/448/76(A)
Companies Act
2013 was invoked
for invoking
S 212(6)
Companies Act
1
SFIO vs.
Aditya Sarda,
SLP (Crl.) No.
13956/2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P17,
Page 702 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
7 NBW
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2020
04.08.2020
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 702 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P17,
Page 703 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Denied by Special
Court
(08.07.2020)
[Annexure P10
of the concerned
SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(20.04.2023)
CRM-M-17518/2022
(IMPUGNED)
S. 447
(@ Page 577 of
Annexure P10 of
the concerned
SLP)
492
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2
SFIO vs Abhay
K. Shah,
S.L.P (Crl)
14033/2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P15,
Page 628 of the
concerned SLP]
10 NBW
23.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
22.11.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P15,
Page 628 of the
concerned SLP]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P15,
Page 619 of the
concerned SLP]
Denied by Special
Court
(23.09.2019)
[Annexure P5,
Page 483 the of
the concerned
SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-43219/2019
(IMPUGNED)
Ss. 447, 448
[Annexure P5,
Page 483 of the
concerned SLP]
3
SFIO vs.
Nazima Khan,
SLP (Crl.) No.
15318/2023)
5 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
[Annexure P13,
Page 629 of the
concerned SLP]
8 NBW
02.11.2019
22.11,2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2019
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P13,
Page 629 of the
concerned SLP]
Pro. Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P13,
Page 629 of the
concerned SLP]
Denied by Special
Court
(11.05.2022)
[Annexure P15,
Page 651 of
concerned SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-25052/2022
(IMPUGNED)
S. 447
[Annexure P15,
Page 651 of the
concerned SLP]
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
493
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
4
SFIO Vs.
Shinder Pal
Singh &
Gurbir Singh,
SLP(Crl.)
15322/2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P14,
Page 653 of the
concerned SLP
for Shinder Pal
Singh]
[Annexure P14, Page
654 of the concerned
SLP for Gurbir Singh
Sandhu]
11 NBW
13.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P14,
Page 653 of the
concerned SLP
for Shinder Pal
Singh]
[Annexure P14, Page
654 of the concerned
SLP for Gurbir Singh
Sandhu]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P14,
Page 653 of the
concerned SLP
for Shinder Pal
Singh]
[Annexure P14,
Page 654 of
the concerned
SLP for Gurbir
Singh Sandhu of
concerned SLP]
Denied by Special
Court
(13.09.2019)
[Annexure P6,
Page 543 of the
concerned SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-
27845/2022
[IMPUGNED]
S. 447
[Annexure P6,
Page 543 of the
concerned SLP]
5
SFIO vs.
Deepak
Shrimali,
SLP (Crl.) No
13960/2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P17,
Page 693 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
11 NBW
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 693 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P17,
Page 694 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Denied by Special
Court
(25.05.2022)
[Annexure P15
of the concerned
SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-
25804/2022
(IMPUGNED)
S. 447
(@ Page 664 of
Annexure P15 of
the concerned
SLP
494
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6
SFIO Vs.
Mahesh Dutt
Sharma,
S.L.P (Crl.)
No. 15326/
2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
NO NBW
NO
PROCLAMATION
INITIATED
Denied by Special
Court
(02.07.2020)
[Annexure P8,
Page 548 of the
concerned SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-20279
/2020
[IMPUGNED]
S. 447
[Annexure P8,
Page 548 of the
concerned SLP]
7
SFIO Vs. Nitin
Rathore,
S.L.P
(Crl.) No.
15333/2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P15,
Page 593 of the
concerned SLP
11 NBW
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
22.11.2019
17.12.2019|
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P15,
Page 593 of the
concerned SLP
Pro.Order
(25.03.2019)
[Annexure P15,
Page 593 of the
concerned SLP]
Denied by Special
Court
(15.11.2019)
[Annexure P6,
Page 493 of the
concerned SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-
51929/2019
(IMPUGNED)
S. 447
[Annexure P6,
Page 494 of the
concerned SLP
8
SFIO Vs.
Shyam Bihari
Gupta,
SLP (Crl.) No.
14128/2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P14,
Page 629 of the
concerned SLP]
5 NBW
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P14,
Page 629 of the
concerned SLP]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P14,
Page 629 of the
concerned SLP]
Denied by Special
Court
(20.08.2020)
[Annexure P7,
Page 494 of the
concerned SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-17096/2022
(IMPUGNED)
S. 447
[Annexure P7,
Page 502 of the
concerned SLP]
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
495
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
9
SFIO vs.
Naveen
Choudhary,
SLP (Crl.) No.
13965/2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P17,
Page 709 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
12 NBW
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 709 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P17,
Page 710 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Denied by Special
Court
(21.12.2019)
[Annexure P6 of
the concerned
SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-
25508/2022
(IMPUGNED)
S. 447
(@ Page 497
Annexure P6 of
the concerned
SLP)
10
SFIO vs.
Manish
Chaudhary,
SLP (Crl.) No.
13975/2023
2 BW
 03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P17,
Page 691 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
11 NBW
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 691 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P17,
Page 692 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Denied by Special
Court
(13.05.2020)
[Annexure P14
of the concerned
SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-
27804/2022
(IMPUGNED)
Ss 447/448/76A
(@ Page 600,
Annexure P14 of
the concerned
SLP)
496
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
11
SFIO vs.
Shabbir Khan,
SLP (Crl.) No.
13983/2023
13 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
02.11.2019
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 706 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
1 NBW
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 706 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
 [Annexure P 17,
Page 707 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Denied by Special
Court
(11.05.2022)
[Annexure P14
of the concerned
SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-25054/2022
(IMPUGNED)
Ss 447/448
(@ Page 593,
Annexure P14 of
the concerned
SLP)
12
SFIO vs.
Saurabh Tak,
SLP (Crl.) No.
13976/2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P17,
Page 713 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
5 NBW
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 713 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P17,
Page 714 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Denied by Special
Court
(20.08.2020)
[Annexure P7 of
the concerned
SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-242999/
2022
(IMPUGNED)
Ss 447/448/76A
(@ Page 498
Annexure P7 of
the concerned
SLP)
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
497
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
13
SFIO vs.
Jinendra Vyas,
SLP (Crl.) No.
13971/2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P17,
Page 686 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
12 NBW
24.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
02.11.2019
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 686 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
 [Annexure P17,
Page 687 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Denied by Special
Court
(24.09.2020)
[Annexure P5 of
the concerned
SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-31742/2021
(IMPUGNED)
Ss 447/448
(Page 488,
Annexure P5 of
the concerned
SLP)
14
SFIO vs.
Akshat Singh,
SLP (Crl.) No.
13973/2023
WITH
Akshat
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P17,
Page 697 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Akshat
11 NBW
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 697 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Akshat
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
 [Annexure P17,
Page 698 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Akshat Singh
withdrew his Ist
Anticipatory Bail
Application
on 15.12.2021
 [Annexure P10
of the concerned
SLP]
Second Anticipatory
Bail Application was
allowed to Akshat
Singh by Special
Court
(20.07.2022)
[Annexure P19
of the concerned
SLP]
High Court rejected
Petition for
Cancellation of Bail
granted to Akshat
Singh (20.03.2023)
CRM-M-40944/2022
(IMPUGNED)
Akshat
Ss 447/448/76A
[Annexure P19,
Page 844 of the
concerned SLP]
498
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SFIO vs.
Naveen
Kumar, SLP
(Crl.) No.
13974/2023
Naveen
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P17,
Page 701 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Naveen
11 BW
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P17,
Page 701 of Main
SLP i.e., Aditya
Sarda]
Naveen
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P17
Page 701-702 of
Main SLP i.e.,
Aditya Sarda]
Anticipatory Bail
granted to Naveen
Kumar by Special
Court
(19.07.2022)
High Court rejected
Petition for
Cancellation of Bail
granted to Naveen
Kumar (20.03.2023)
CRM-M-1180/2023
(IMPUGNED)
Naveen
Ss 447/6A
[Annexure P18,
Page 826 of the
concerned SLP]
15
SFIO Vs.
Prakash
Chandra
Purohit
SLP (Crl.) No.
15311/ 2023
2 BW
03.6.2019
30.7.2019
[Annexure P13,
Page 561 of the
concerned SLP]
11 NBW
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
22.11.2019
17.12.2019
31.01.2020
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P13,
Page 561 of the
concerned SLP]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P13,
Page 561 of the
concerned SLP]
Denied by Special
Court
(25.05.2022)
[Annexure P14,
Page 94
of the
concerned SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-25516/2022
(IMPUGNED)
S. 447
[Annexure P14,
Page 594
of
concerned SLP]
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
499
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
16
SFIO vs.
Paras Bolia,
SLP (Crl.) No.
13978/2023
2 BW
03.06.2019
30.07.2019
[Annexure P16,
Page 651 of the
concerned SLP]
9 NBW
04.09.2019
03.10.2019
19.10.2019
02.11.2019
24.09.2020
15.01.2021
19.02.2021
04.08.2021
08.09.2021
[Annexure P16,
Page 651 of the
concerned SLP]
Pro.Order
(25.03.2022)
[Annexure P16,
Page 651 of the
concerned SLP]
Denied by Special
Court
(08.07.2020)
[Annexure P8,
Page 555 of the
concerned SLP]
Granted by High
Court
(29.03.2023)
CRM-M-25412/2020
(IMPUGNED)
S. 447
[Annexure P8,
Page 555 of the
concerned SLP]
5.
If the individual cases of the respondents are taken into consideration,
the following facts have emerged as transpiring from the chart
tabulated hereinabove read with the order dated 25.03.2022 passed
by the Special Court initiating proclamation proceedings under
Section 82 of Cr.P.C.
(i)
In case of the respondent Aditya Sarda (Accused No.141), the
bailable/non-bailable warrants could not be executed, as he was
not available at the last known address. His anticipatory bail
application was rejected by the Special Court on 08.07.2020, in
which he had mentioned the same address as mentioned in the
complaint. The Proclamation Order was passed against him on
25.03.2022. He was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court
vide the order dated 20.04.2023 which is impugned herein.
(ii)
In case of the respondent Abhay K Shah (Accused No.127), the
non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that his house was locked since
long. His anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Special
Court on 23.09.2019, and was granted by the High Court vide
the order dated 29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(iii) In case of the respondent Nazima Khan (Accused No.152), the
non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that the accused was not available
500
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
at home. His anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the
Special Court on 11.05.2022 and he was granted anticipatory
bail by the High Court vide the order dated 29.03.2023, which
is impugned herein.
(iv) In case of the respondent Shinder Pal Singh (Accused No.137),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that he had left the house
at given address. His anticipatory bail was dismissed by the
Special Court on 13.09.2019 and he was granted anticipatory
bail by the High Court vide the order dated 29.03.2023, which
is impugned herein.
(v)
In case of the respondent Deepak Shrimali (Accused No.129),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that as per his mother the accused
was not available at home. His anticipatory bail was rejected
by the Special Court vide the order dated 25.05.2022 and he
was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on 29.03.2023,
which is impugned herein.
(vi) In case of the respondent Mahesh Dutt Sharma, (Accused
no.178), there was no non-bailable warrants issued, nor
any proclamation proceedings were initiated against him by
the Special Court. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court vide the order dated 02.07.2020 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(vii) In case of the respondent Nitin Rathore (Accused No.116),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that he had left the house at
the given address. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court vide the order dated 15.11.2019 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(viii) In case of Shyam Bihari Gupta (Accused No.165), the nonbailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that as per the gardener in his house,
he was not available at home. His anticipatory bail was rejected
by the Special Court vide the order dated 20.08.2020 and he
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
501
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order
dated 29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(ix) In case of the respondent Naveen Choudhary (Accused No.
162), the non-bailable warrants issued against him were not
received back either executed or unexecuted and as per the
public prosecutor appearing in the case, there was no other
address available. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court vide the order dated 21.12.2019 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(x)
In case of the respondent Manish Chaudhary (Accused No.
128), the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that as per his wife, he was
not available at home. His anticipatory bail was rejected by
the Special Court vide the order dated 13.05.2020 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(xi) In case of the respondent Shabbir Khan, (Accused No. 153), the
non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that as per the Chowkidar in his
house, he was not at home. His anticipatory bail was rejected
by the Special Court vide the order dated 11.05.2022 and he
was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order
dated 29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(xii) In case of the respondent Saurabh Tak (Accused No. 172),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that he had left the house at
the given address. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court vide the order dated 20.08.2020 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(xiii) In case of the respondent Jinender Vyas (Accused No. 118),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that he had left the house at
the given address. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court vide the order dated 24.09.2020 and he was
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order dated
502
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(xiv) In case of the respondent Akshat Singh (Accused No. 136), the
non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back
unexecuted with the report that he had left the house at the given
address. His first anticipatory bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn by the Special Court vide the order dated 15.12.2021,
however his second anticipatory bail application was granted by
the Special Court vide the order dated 20.07.2022. It appears
that a Petition seeking cancellation of his bail was rejected
by the High Court vide the order dated 20.03.2023 which is
impugned herein. Similarly, in case of the respondent Naveen
Kumar (Accused No. 139), the non-bailable warrants issued
against him were received back unexecuted with the report
that no such person resided at the given address. However,
it appears that his anticipatory bail application was granted
by the Special Court vide the order dated 19.07.2022 and
the High Court rejected the Petition filed by the SFIO seeking
cancellation of his bail, vide the order dated 20.03.2023, which
is impugned herein.
(xv) In case of the respondent Prakash Chandra Purohit (Accused
No.133), the non-bailable warrants issued against him were
received back unexecuted with the report that the house was
locked since long. His anticipatory bail application was rejected
by the Special Court vide the order dated 25.05.2022 and he
was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide the order
dated 29.03.2023, which is impugned herein.
(xvi) In case of the respondent Paras Bolia (Accused No. 121),
the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received
back unexecuted with the report that he had left the house at
the given address. His anticipatory bail was rejected by the
Special Court on 08.07.2020 and he was granted anticipatory
bail by the High Court vide the order dated 29.03.2023, which
is impugned herein.
6.
APPEALS ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.13973-13974/2023
AND SLP (CRL.) NO.15326/2023: - Heard learned Advocate Mr.
Padmesh Mishra for the Appellant SFIO and the learned Senior
Advocates Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Mr. Nadkarni, and Mr. Somayajulu
for the respondents in these appeals.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
503
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
7.
At the outset, the learned Advocate Mr. Padmesh Mishra appearing
for the Appellant SFIO, had fairly conceded that there was no nonbailable warrant issued against the respondent Mahesh Dutt Sharma
(SLP Crl. No.15326/2023) by the Special Court, nor any proclamation
proceedings were initiated against him. He also did not dispute that
in cases of respondent Akshat Singh and respondent Naveen Kumar
(SLP Crl. Nos.13973/2023 and 13974/2023), the Special Court itself
had granted the anticipatory bail to them, and that the petitions filed
by the SFIO against the said orders were dismissed by the High
Court. Under the circumstances, we do not propose to entertain the
Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.13973-13974/2023 and SLP
(Crl.) No.15326/2023, and the same are dismissed.
8.
APPEALS IN OTHER CASES: - Heard the learned Advocates
Mr. Padmesh Mishra for the Appellant - SFIO, and the learned
Senior Advocates Mr. Siddharth Dave, Mr. Basant, Mr. Nagamuthu,
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Mr. Rudreshwar Singh,
Mr. Devesh Bhatia, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Vivek Soni, Mr. Arjun
Sharma and Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, for the respondents in these appeals.
9.
The facts that have emerged from the record, clearly demonstrate
the respondents in this set of appeals had avoided the execution
of the non-bailable warrants even after their anticipatory bail
applications were rejected in 2019-2020-2022 by the Special Court.
Though it was contended by the learned Advocates appearing
for the respondents that the respondents were not aware about
the proceedings, the same cannot be accepted. The very fact of
their filing anticipatory bail applications before the Special Court,
falsifies the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsels
for the said respondents that the respondents were not aware of
the complaint proceedings filed by the SFIO in the Special Court.
There is no justification coming forth from the said respondents as
to why after the rejection of their anticipatory bail applications by
the Special Court, they did not appear before the Special Court and
made themselves unavailable at the given addresses furnished by
them during the course of the investigation by the SFIO. It may be
noted that the anticipatory bail applications, of the said respondents
were allowed by the High Court only in March-April 2023. Since,
the said respondents had concealed themselves and avoided to
remain present before the Special Court despite they having the
knowledge about the pendency of the complaint proceedings, the
504
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Special Court was perfectly justified in initiating the proclamation
proceedings against the said respondents.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
10. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to reproduce some of the
provisions of the Companies Act as also the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
11. Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 pertains to the "Investigation
into the affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office".
The relevant part thereof is reproduced below:
"212. Investigation into affairs of Company by Serious
Fraud Investigation Office. -
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 210,
where the Central Government is of the opinion, that it is
necessary to investigate into the affairs of a company by
the Serious Fraud Investigation Office-
(a) on receipt of a report of the Registrar or inspector
under Section 208;
(b) on intimation of a special resolution passed
by a company that its affairs are required to be
investigated;
(c) in the public interest; or
(d) on request from any Department of the Central
Government or a State Government, the Central
Government may, by order, assign the investigation
into the affairs of the said company to the Serious
Fraud Investigation Office and its Director, may
designate such number of inspectors, as he
may consider necessary for the purpose of such
investigation.
(2) to (5)................................................
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), offence covered
under section 447 of this Act shall be cognizable and no
person accused of any offence under those sections shall
be released on bail or on his own bond unless-
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
505
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen
years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released
on bail, if the Special Court so directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take
cognizance of any offence referred to this subsection
except upon a complaint in writing made by-
(i) the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government authorised,
by a general or special order in writing in this behalf
by that Government.
(7) to (17)..............................................."
12. Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 pertains to the "Punishment
for fraud" which reads as under: -
"447. Punishment for fraud. -
Without prejudice to any liability including repayment of
any debt under this Actor any other law for the time being
in force, any person who is found to be guilty of fraud, 1
[involving an amount of at least ten lakh rupees or one per
cent. of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower]
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months but which may extend to
ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be
less than the amount involved in the fraud, but which may
extend to three times the amount involved in the fraud:
Provided that where the fraud in question involves public
interest, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than
three years.
506
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Provided further that where the fraud involves an amount
less than ten lakh rupees or one per cent. of the turnover
of the company, whichever is lower, and does not involve
public interest, any person guilty of such fraud shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to five years or with fine which may extend to fifty lakh
rupees or with both.
Explanation. -For the purposes of this section-
(i)
"fraud", in relation to affairs of a company or any body
corporate, includes any act, omission, concealment
of any fact or abuse of position committed by any
person or any other person with the connivance in
any manner, with intent to deceive, to gain undue
advantage from, or to injure the interests of, the
company or its shareholders or its creditors or any
other person, whether or not there is any wrongful
gain or wrongful loss;
(ii)
"wrongful gain" means the gain by unlawful means
of property to which the person gaining is not legally
entitled;
(iii) "wrongful loss" means the loss by unlawful means of
property to which the person losing is legally entitled."
13. Section 82 of Cr.P.C., 1973 pertains to the "Proclamation for person
absconding", relevant part thereof reads as under: -
"82. Proclamation for person absconding.