LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/m-s-jermyn-capital-llc-dubai-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-ors-20230509/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

M/s. Jermyn Capital Llc Dubai vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
9 May 2023
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 1434 of 2023
Result
Allowed
Bench
Krishna Murari, Sanjay Kumar
Citation
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 565 : 2023 INSC 509
Supreme Court Reports [2023] 6 S.C.R. 565 : 2023 INSC 509
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.102 – Freeze orders and bank guarantee in furtherance there of were imposed against the appellant company on grounds of necessity of investigation of an alleged crime initiated against one ‘D’ allegedly connected to the appellant company – Held: Accused-‘D’ was never an employee/share holder/director or a key managerial person in the appellant company – Since ‘D’ was in no way connected to the appellant company, the trial faced by him, was in his individual capacity, and not vicariously on behalf of the appellant company – No criminal proceedings whatsoever are pending against the appellant company pertaining to the dispute at hand – Furthermore, ‘D’ has been discharged of the alleged offences by the Trial Court – Even assuming that his discharge is subsequently reversed, and he is convicted, such a conviction would still have no bearing on the properties of the appellant company, since it is not alleged to be a part of the crime – The purpose of the freeze order and the bank guarantee in extension of the freeze order, can only be in operation to aid in the investigation against the alleged crime – Since the appellant company is in no way connected to the alleged crime, the freeze order against its properties is redundant qua the investigation – As the investigation against the appellant company is redundant, hence, the freeze of the appellant company’s assets and the bank guarantee imposed in furtherance thereof also becomes redundant – Therefore, the condition imposed upon the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee by the Courts below is not sustainable and is set aside – Orders impugned modified – Appellant permitted to withdraw the amount along with 4% simple interest.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA MURARI, J. Leave Granted. 2. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Criminal Application No. 602 of 2013. FACTS 3. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal are that the appellant company is a Foreign Institutional Investor and was permitted by Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short ‘SEBI’) to buy and sell shares and securities in the Indian Stock Market. However, due
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →