High Court Rejects Successive Bail Plea: Long Jail Time Not Enough

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that a successive bail plea cannot be entertained solely on the ground that the accused has been in jail for a long time, particularly when bail was earlier refused by way of detailed, reasoned orders. This decision was made in the case of Rajeev Kumar Rana v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).

Justice Manisha Batra made the observation while refusing to grant bail to a real-estate developer accused in a large-scale SFIO investigation into the Adarsh Group. The High Court held that while a successive bail plea is not barred in law, it can succeed only if the accused shows a substantial change in circumstances.

Though a second or successive regular bail application cannot be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof, the petitioner is required to show some substantial change in circumstances. In the considered opinion of this Court, however, he has not been able to point out any such substantial change, the Court noted.

The Court further rejected an argument that prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the accused by itself was a ground to grant bail. Merely on the ground of his prolonged incarceration, he cannot be held entitled to seek benefit of bail in this petition, especially in the circumstance when his previous petition had been dismissed by passing a detailed order and that order stands upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Court held.

The matter concerned a case that arose from a June 2018 order of the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which directed the SFIO to investigate the Adarsh Group of companies and more than 125 associated Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs). The SFIO alleged that funds deposited by nearly two lakh small investors in Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Limited were diverted to various group entities through transactions based on questionable financial statements. A criminal complaint was filed by the SFIO in 2019, which is treated as a police report under the Companies Act.

Rajeev Kumar Rana was a real estate developer who was named as one of the 177 accused parties in the complaint. He was summoned by the trial court for offences under Section 447 of the Companies Act, which deals with corporate fraud and carries a punishment of up to ten years’ imprisonment. The SFIO alleged that Rana, while acting as an authorised signatory and holding an 18% stake in a real estate project of Adarsh Build Estate Limited, withdrew funds amounting to around ₹85 crore on the pretext of project-related expenses. He was arrested in July 2022.

Rana's first application for regular bail was dismissed by the High Court in November 2023. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that order in May 2024. He eventually filed a second bail plea, arguing that he had remained in custody for over three years, that charges had not yet been framed, and that the delay in trial violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court rejected this argument, even though it acknowledged that the trial had not yet begun and could take a long time, given the large number of accused. It, however, went on to observe that the seriousness of the alleged fraud, along with the fact that both the High Court and the Supreme Court had previously denied bail, weighed against granting Rana bail. The Court, therefore, dismissed the second bail plea but directed the trial court to take steps to expedite the trial proceedings, including by separating the trials of the accused whose presence has not yet been secured.

Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai along with advocates Arnav Ghai and Nitin Gupt appeared for the bail applicant. Senior Panel Counsel Puneeta Sethi and advocate YS Thakur appeared on behalf of SFIO.