Bombay High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Application in SEBI Investigation Case — Applicant Failed to Show Prima Facie Case of No Offence Under SEBI Act and IPC. Court Held That Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted Where Investigation Is at Nascent Stage and Applicant's Role in Alleged Fraudulent Scheme Requires Detailed Scrutiny.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Rajiv Ranjan Singh, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in connection with FIR No. 370 of 2024 registered by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) at the SEBI Police Station, Mumbai. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 11, 12, and 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act) and Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The applicant was accused of being involved in a fraudulent scheme related to securities trading. The court noted that the investigation was at a nascent stage and the applicant's role required detailed scrutiny. The applicant argued that he was innocent and had no criminal antecedents, but the court found that the allegations were serious and economic offences of this nature require thorough investigation. The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as it would hamper the investigation and the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case that no offence was made out. The application was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Investigation Stage - The court considered whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the investigation is at a nascent stage and the applicant's role in an alleged fraudulent scheme requires detailed scrutiny. Held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as it would hamper the investigation and the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for no offence (Paras 1-10).

B) Securities Law - SEBI Act - Sections 11, 12, 24 - Fraudulent Trading - The court examined the allegations of fraudulent trading in securities and the need for custodial interrogation. Held that economic offences of this nature require thorough investigation and custodial interrogation may be necessary to unearth the conspiracy (Paras 5-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with an FIR registered by SEBI for alleged offences under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

Law Points

  • Anticipatory bail
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • SEBI Act
  • 1992
  • Securities fraud
  • Investigation stage
  • Prima facie case
  • Custodial interrogation
  • Economic offences
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 99

Criminal Revision Application No. 370 of 2024

2025-09-11

Amit Borkar

2025:BHC-AS:37804

Mr. Ashok Singh with Mr. Sameer Bothre i/by Mr. Arun Nile for the applicant, Ms. Anubha Rastogi with Mr. Aditya Joshi for respondent No.1-SEBI, Mr. Sagar R. Agarkar, APP for respondent No.2-State

Rajiv Ranjan Singh

Securities and Exchange Board of India & State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision application against rejection of anticipatory bail

Remedy Sought

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC

Filing Reason

Applicant apprehended arrest in connection with FIR No. 370 of 2024 registered by SEBI for alleged offences under SEBI Act and IPC

Issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC when the investigation is at a nascent stage and the applicant's role requires detailed scrutiny.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant argued that he is innocent, has no criminal antecedents, and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Respondent SEBI argued that the applicant's role in the alleged fraudulent scheme requires custodial interrogation and that anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC cannot be granted where the investigation is at a nascent stage and the applicant's role in an alleged economic offence requires detailed scrutiny, as it would hamper the investigation and the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case that no offence is made out.

Judgment Excerpts

The investigation is at a nascent stage and the applicant's role requires detailed scrutiny. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted as it would hamper the investigation. The applicant failed to make out a prima facie case that no offence is made out.

Procedural History

The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the Sessions Court, which was rejected. The applicant then filed the present criminal revision application before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 438
  • Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act): Sections 11, 12, 24
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Application in SEBI Investigation Case — Applicant Failed to Show Prima Facie Case of No Offence Under SEBI Act and IPC. Court Held That Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted Where Investigation Is at Nas...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Interest Demand in ESI Act Case for Violation of Natural Justice. Failure to Issue Show Cause Notice Before Determining Interest Under Section 39(5) of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 Renders Order Unsustainable.