₹5 Lakh Price for Liberty; NBWs Not to Be Issued Mechanically: P&H High Court Sets Aside Warrants in SFIO Case
Case Name: Meenakshi Modi v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office; Rohit Modi v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Date of Judgment: 16 April 2026
Citation: CRM-M-14074-2026 & CRM-M-14213-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that non-bailable warrants (NBWs) should not be issued in a routine or mechanical manner, particularly when the accused expresses willingness to appear and participate in trial. Courts must balance procedural discipline with fairness, and coercive processes should not be invoked where absence is explainable and curable.
Summary: Both petitions arose out of the same SFIO prosecution (Serious Fraud Investigation Officer v. Adarsh Build Estate Ltd. & Ors.), where the petitioners challenged the issuance of non-bailable warrants dated 07.01.2026 by the trial Court due to their non-appearance.
In Meenakshi Modi, the petitioner contended that despite protection granted by the Supreme Court and earlier exemption orders, her application for furnishing bonds was rejected and NBWs were issued. She argued that her absence was bona fide and that she was willing to appear before the Court.
Similarly, in Rohit Modi, the petitioner—already on bail—challenged the issuance of NBWs and forfeiture of bonds after his request for exemption (to care for his ailing wife) was declined. He submitted that his absence was not intentional and that he remained willing to join proceedings.
The High Court, while not delving into the merits of the reasons for absence, took note of the petitioners’ willingness to submit to jurisdiction and face trial. It emphasized that the object of issuing warrants is to secure presence, not to punish. The Court implicitly disapproved of a rigid or mechanical approach in issuing NBWs without adequately considering surrounding circumstances.
At the same time, the Court balanced this leniency with accountability by imposing substantial costs, reflecting the importance of ensuring compliance with court proceedings and discouraging casual absence.
Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned orders issuing non-bailable warrants in both cases, subject to strict conditions. The petitioners were directed to deposit costs of ₹5,00,000 each (distributed to specified institutions), appear before the trial Court within the stipulated time, and seek regularization of bail. Interim protection from arrest was granted for a limited period, failing which the impugned orders would automatically revive.