Anticipatory bail in serious economic offences remains exceptional where accused evade process and statutory bail conditions apply.

Anticipatory bail in serious economic offences was held to be an exceptional remedy, and the accused's repeated evasion of warrants and initiation of proclamation proceedings under Section 82 weighed against grant of relief; the High Court orders were set aside on those facts. The Court also treated the twin conditions in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 as mandatory for bail and anticipatory bail in prosecutions for fraud under Section 447, and found the impugned grants unsustainable for non-compliance with those statutory restraints.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anticipatory bail could be granted to accused persons in a serious economic offence case despite repeated non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the restrictive twin conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 apply to bail and anticipatory bail in prosecutions for fraud under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Issue (i): Whether anticipatory bail could be granted to accused persons in a serious economic offence case despite repeated non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Economic offences were treated as a distinct and grave class of offences affecting the financial health of the country. The accused persons had avoided execution of warrants, had not submitted to the process of the Special Court, and proclamation proceedings had been initiated against several of them. In such circumstances, the extraordinary power of anticipatory bail was not to be exercised as a matter of course, and the conduct of the accused in evading the process of law was material.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not justified on these facts, and the High Court orders granting such relief were liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the restrictive twin conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 apply to bail and anticipatory bail in prosecutions for fraud under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: Section 212(6) makes offences covered by Section 447 cognizable and imposes mandatory conditions before release on bail or on bond. The Court treated these conditions as binding in anticipatory bail proceedings as well, and found that the impugned orders had been passed without due regard to those statutory restraints.

Conclusion: The twin conditions under Section 212(6) apply and the impugned grants of anticipatory bail were unsustainable for non-compliance with those statutory requirements.

Final Conclusion: The orders granting anticipatory bail were set aside in the connected matters where the accused had evaded process, while the appeals concerning the three cases already noted by the Court were dismissed; the accused were directed to surrender and seek relief afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions for serious economic offences under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, where warrants have remained unexecuted and proclamation proceedings have been initiated, anticipatory bail is an exceptional relief and cannot be granted without applying the mandatory statutory conditions governing bail.

---