New Delhi, Apr 9 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday said economic offences constitute a class apart with deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss of public funds therefore worthy of a serious view.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and P B Varale said granting anticipatory bail was "certainly not" the rule. The court said the accused who continuously avoid to follow the due process of the law by not attending court and conceal themselves to derail the proceedings were not entitled to anticipatory bail.

"If the rule of law is to prevail in the society, every person would have to abide by the law, respect the law and follow the due process of law," it added.

The bench's remark came when it allowed 16 appeals of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused in the over Rs 9,000 crore Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society embezzlement case.

"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 bench said.

The law, the court said, aided only the "abiding" and certainly not its "resistants" and when a chargesheet was submitted in the court, or in a complaint case, summons or warrant were issued to the accused, they were bound to submit themselves to the authority of the law.

"If he is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the court taking cognisance has found him prima facie involved in serious economic offences or heinous offences," the verdict authored by Justice Trivedi said.

The top court asked high courts to consider issuing non-bailable warrants and initiating proclamation proceedings "seriously and not casually" while hearing the pre-arrest bail pleas of such accused persons.

In the present case, the bench said, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs directed the SFIO to investigate into the affairs of 125 companies.

Once investigation was over, the SFIO lodged the private complaint before the special court against the accused persons including the respondents, alleging various serious offences under the Companies Act and the IPC.

The bench while referring to the offence covered under Section 447 of the Companies Act, said it was made cognisable and the person accused of it was not entitled to be released on bail or on his bond, unless twin conditions mentioned in it were satisfied.

"The twin conditions are: (i) that a public prosecutor should be 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," the bench said, calling the riders mandatory.

The top court said the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed the orders granting anticipatory bail to the accused despite the special court taking cognisance of the alleged offences under the Companies Act including under Section 447 and other offences under the IPC.

Even the non-bailable warrants were issued from time to time against the accused and in some cases even the proclamation proceedings were initiated against them, the court said.

"The said orders have been passed in utter disregard of the mandatory conditions contained in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, and also ignoring the conduct of the respondents accused. Such orders being in the teeth of the legal position settled by this Court, as also in the teeth of the Section 212(6) of Companies Act, would fall into the category of perverse orders and therefore untenable at law," the verdict said.

The bench said in none of the 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 accused.

The judicial time of every court, even of the magistrate's court, was as precious and valuable as that of the high courts and the Supreme Court, it underscored.

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, the bench added.

Calling the orders "perverse and untenable at law", it said they couldn't be sustained and directed the accused persons to surrender before the special court within a week from Wednesday. PTI MNL AMK

Economic offences treated as a class apart; anticipatory bail denied where accused evade process and ignore mandatory companies law safeguards. The court held that economic offences are a distinct category requiring strict treatment: accused who evade process or conceal themselves are not entitled to anticipatory bail, especially where cognisance has been taken and mandatory conditions under the Companies Act apply. High courts that granted pre-arrest relief while ignoring those statutory safeguards and the accused's conduct produced perverse orders; courts should seriously employ non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings to secure attendance and allow prosecution to proceed.