Anticipatory Bail Should Be Granted Sparingly In Economic Offences Cases: SC
⚖️ Supreme Court's Stance on Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offences
The Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be exercised sparingly, especially in cases involving economic offences. These offences often have far-reaching implications on the economy and society, necessitating a cautious approach.
1. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019)
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court reiterated that economic offences affect the economic fabric of society. The Court observed:
“Economic offences stand as a different class and grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in such offences, would definitely hamper the effective investigation.”
The Court highlighted that economic offences are committed with deliberate design and have a significant impact on the community. Therefore, anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely in such cases .
2. Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy (2023)
In this case, the Supreme Court set aside the Telangana High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court emphasized that the High Court had not considered the nature and seriousness of the offences and had dealt with the anticipatory bail application as if it were an ordinary offence under the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed:
“Economic offences are to be treated differently from other offences. It was observed that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community.”
The Court further stated that the power under Section 438 of the CrPC (anticipatory bail) is an extraordinary remedy and should be exercised sparingly, more so in cases of economic offences .
3. Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda (2025)
In this recent case, the Supreme Court allowed appeals filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused in a financial fraud case. The Court observed:
“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.”
The Court emphasized that individuals who create hindrances in the execution of warrants or are concealing themselves should not be granted anticipatory bail. The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and should be granted sparingly, particularly in cases involving serious economic offences .
🧾 Key Takeaways
Extraordinary Remedy: Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be exercised sparingly, especially in cases involving economic offences.
Serious Impact: Economic offences have a significant impact on the economy and society, necessitating a cautious approach in granting anticipatory bail.
Obstruction of Justice: Individuals who evade legal proceedings or obstruct the administration of justice are not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Judicial Discretion: Courts must exercise their discretion judiciously, considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice, and other relevant factors.
RELATED Blog
0 comments