The Supreme Court on Friday said it has always been “extremely shy” to direct arrest even as petitioners asked why agencies have so far not arrested “kingpin” Anil Ambani in an alleged financial fraud case.
The court said arrest must be the last resort, and not the first option.
Mr. Ambani, through his counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, said “he may have been cheated too”, even as a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) status report in the court pegged loss to public sector banks and LIC in seven cases under investigation at ₹27,337 crore.
Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the probe agency, said a total of nine regular cases were lodged against Reliance ADAG entities, led by Anil Ambani, of which seven were under investigation while chargesheets were filed in the remaining two. He said chargesheets were expected to be filed on a timeline through the year, starting in the next three weeks.
Mr. Mehta informed the court that 31 look-out circulars were issued and over 224 witnesses, including bank officials, were examined. He said searches were conducted at the premises of the ADAG promoters and directors. The law officer briefed that 3,960 documents had been collected. Two arrests were made, and “few more arrests were expected in the coming days as more evidence surfaces”.
Intervening at this point in the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioner E.A.S. Sarma, questioned why Mr. Ambani had not been arrested as yet.
“The CBI, the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), all of them say Anil Ambani is the kingpin. Yet I find it very puzzling that neither CBI nor ED, nobody is willing to arrest him, as if he is some holy cow, as if he is above the law. I find it very strange… They have arrested those who were acting on the instructions of the kingpin, but the kingpin is not arrested,” Mr. Bhushan submitted.
‘Custodial interrogation prerogative of probe agency’
Justice Bagchi said the need for custodial interrogation was the prerogative of the investigating agency.
“We are extremely shy in directing arrest. It should be the last resort. It is also a subjective decision that has to be made in the background of sobering laws. In this case, we have been called upon to address the issues of collection of evidence and the preservation, protection and production of witnesses. These are the areas which we need to address, rather than sensationalise the investigation process,” Mr. Bagchi observed.
The senior lawyer said he was not trying to overreach, but was merely registering his surprise in court that there was no move to arrest despite the CBI chargesheet saying that “so much money was siphoned out at his [Ambani] express directions”.
Mr. Sibal asked how Mr. Bhushan had got hold of the chargesheet even before the trial court had a chance to take cognisance of it.
“Your [petitioner’s] only agenda may be to arrest Anil Ambani. If a chargesheet is filed, I will defend myself. I have cooperated every time the investigating agencies called me. I had not sought time nor gone abroad in the last two years. There is no question of me running away. Then why say all this? I have given an undertaking to this court… This is very, very unfair. This is more than meets the eye. Maybe I was cheated too,” Mr. Sibal countered on behalf of Mr. Ambani.
Justice Bagchi said the question of arrest must be left to the wisdom of the investigating agencies.
“We cannot put the cart before the horse. We cannot use the process of criminal investigation as a deprivation of the liberty paradigm,” Justice Bagchi observed.
He said on one hand the court had delivered judgments protecting the rights of the accused, while on the other, it cannot let loose enforcement agencies like bloodhounds on the accused persons.
The court, which is monitoring the investigation, also refrained from hearing pleas made by Mr. Ambani’s side. Chief Justice Kant said the court would hold its hand for the time being, and let the agencies get on with the probe.
“When the court is monitoring the investigation, the accused has no right to give his point of view about the manner in which the investigation process must go. At the same time, the accused has a right to say that the very initiation of the investigation is illegal, but once that is crossed, the accused has no right to say how the river must flow… definitely not,” Justice Bagchi observed.
The court listed the case for July.
Published – May 08, 2026 07:05 pm IST
