The Supreme Court on Friday said it was always “extremely timid” to direct arrests, even as petitioners questioned why agencies have not yet arrested “king” Anil Ambani in the alleged financial fraud case.
The court said arrest must be a last resort, not a first resort.
Mr Ambani, through his counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, said that “it is possible that he was also cheated”, even as a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) status report in court pegged the loss to public sector banks and LICs at ₹27,337 crore in the seven cases under investigation.
Appearing before a panel headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Solicitor General for the investigating agency Tushar Mehta said that a total of nine regular cases have been filed against Anil Ambani-led entities of Reliance ADAG, of which seven have been investigated while chargesheets have been filed in the remaining two. He said indictments are expected to be filed throughout the year, starting in the next three weeks.
Mr. Mehta informed the court that 31 circulars were issued and more than 224 witnesses, including bank officials, were examined. He said searches were conducted at the premises of ADAG promoters and directors. The lawyer reported that 3,960 documents were collected. Two arrests were made and “several more arrests are expected in the coming days as more evidence emerges”.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan for petitioner EAS Sarma, who intervened at this point in the hearing, asked why Mr Ambani had not been arrested so far.
“The CBI, the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) all say that Anil Ambani is a kingpin. Yet I find it very mysterious that neither the CBI nor the ED, no one 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 arrested the one who was acting on the king’s instructions. Bhushan submitted.
“Custodial interrogation by investigating agency”
Justice Bagchi said the need for custodial interrogation was the prerogative of the investigating agency.
“We are extremely shy in making arrests. It should be the last resort. It is also a subjective decision that has to be taken against the backdrop of sober laws. In this case, we have been called upon to deal with the issues of evidence collection and preservation, protection and production of witnesses. These are the areas we need to address rather than sensationalize the investigation process,” Bagchi noted.
The senior lawyer said he was not trying to exaggerate but merely registered his surprise in the court that there was no move to make an arrest despite the CBI’s allegation that “so much money was siphoned off on his (Ambani’s) express instructions”.
Mr. Sibal asked how Mr. Bhushan seized the charge before the trial court had an opportunity to take cognizance.
“Your (petitioner’s) only agenda may be to arrest Anil Ambani. If charges are filed, I will defend myself. I have cooperated every time the investigating agencies have called me. I have not sought time or gone abroad for the last two years. There is no question of my absconding. So why say all this? I have committed myself to this court… It may be very, very unfair. This is too unfair. Sibal. countered on behalf of Mr. Ambani.
Justice Bagchi said the issue of arrest must be left to the wisdom of the investigating agencies.
“We cannot put the cart before the horse. We cannot use the criminal investigation process as a deprivation of liberty paradigm,” Justice Bagchi observed.
He said that on the one hand, the court issued judgments to protect the rights of the accused, on the other hand, it cannot let the law enforcement agencies act as bloodhounds on the accused persons.
The court, which is monitoring the probe, also refrained from hearing the appeals by Mr. Ambani. Chief Justice Kant said the court would hold its hand for now and let the agencies continue their investigation.
“When the court is watching the investigation, the accused has no right to express his opinion as to how the investigation process must be conducted. The accused also has the 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…absolutely not,” Justice Bagchi observed.
The court listed the case for July.
Published – 08 May 2026 19:05 IST
