“May Be I Was Cheated” : Anil Ambani Tells Supreme Court As Petitioner Questions His Non-Arrest In Bank Fraud Case

The Supreme Court on Friday heard a PIL seeking investigation into the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crore by companies of the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, during which Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Anil Ambani, told the Court that “maybe he was cheated” by officials, even as petitioner's counsel questioned why Ambani had not been arrested despite serious allegations in the probe agencies' findings.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that multiple investigations by the CBI and ED were underway.

Placing a status note before the Court, the SG said two FIRs had been registered against Reliance Telecom on complaints by SBI, while nine regular cases had been registered in total. Of these, seven were under investigation and two had already been chargesheeted. He added that the total loss in the seven cases under probe was Rs 27,337 crore.

Mehta informed the Court that multiple investigating officers had been assigned, searches had been conducted, 31 lookout circulars issued and over 3,960 documents collected. He further stated that two arrests had already been made and “a few more” were likely in the coming days.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner EAS Sarma, referred to one of the CBI chargesheets and alleged that it disclosed “stark” facts involving transactions between companies linked to Anil Ambani and private companies associated with the chairman of Yes Bank.

“CBI, SEBI and ED are saying that in this scam, Anil Ambani is the kingpin. Yet, I find it very puzzling that neither CBI nor ED is willing to arrest him. As if he is some holy cow, above being arrested,” Bhushan submitted. 

The CJI responded that the Court was, for the moment, only planning to monitor the investigation. Bhushan, however, argued that while lower functionaries have been arrested on the ground that they were acting as per the instructions of the "kingpin", the "kingpin" himself has not been arrested.  

The Bench noted that its earlier intervention had been necessary to “activate” the agencies and observed that if the investigation was found lacking, the Court may step in further.

Justice Bagchi also raised concerns over the Court directing the arrest of an accused.

“Even if allegations are grave, if there is cooperation and participation, we are not going to put the cart before the horse. On one hand, we want to develop jurisprudence like Antil and Pankaj Bansal, on the other, activating investigating agencies like bloodhounds will be contrary to the law we are laying down,” Justice Bagchi observed.

The CJI added that the issue of custodial interrogation would be left “to the wisdom of investigating authorities.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Anil Ambani, expressed anguish over the submissions being made in Court before cognizance had even been taken on the chargesheets. He questioned how the petitioner got access to the chargesheets.

“I am pained. Cognizance has not been taken yet. How does my friend have the chargesheet? If chargesheet is filed, I will defend myself. I have not filed anticipatory bail. There is no question of my running away anywhere. I have given undertaking to this Court,” Sibal said, referring to an earlier undertaking given by Ambani that he will not leave the country without the permisison of the Court.

Sibal also submitted, "Maybe I was cheated.” The bench said that it was not deciding anyone's guilt or innocence and was only ensuring that the investigation was on the right track.

The CJI clarified that the petitioner did not appear to have any personal agenda and that the allegations related to siphoning of public money.  

“We are confident the agencies will reach a logical conclusion. It should be time-bound so that public confidence is maintained. Does the haircut principle condone criminal conspiracy by bank officers? If a bank, instead of taking 50, has accepted 8, they have a right to investigate,” the CJI observed.

At that stage, the SG cautioned against allowing a “potential accused” to address the Court on the issue, saying it may set a precedent. Justice Bagchi observed that whether an accused could be heard at this stage was a nuanced issue.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for ADAG group companies, urged the Court to consider the impact of the investigations and attachment proceedings on listed companies such as Reliance Infrastructure and Reliance Power.

Divan submitted that Reliance Infrastructure was a standalone debt-free company with assets worth Rs 69,600 crore and argued that certain companies were “blemishless” entities merely forming part of the larger group. Divan said that the companies have crores of receivables from the Government of India.

Divan also submitted that the trial courts are reluctant to grant bail to the officials who have ben arrested, as the Supreme Court was monitoring the investigation. He requested clarification that the Court's monitoring will not preclude the other Courts from deciding the matter on merits.

Sibal also requested the Court to clarify that its monitoring of the probe should not be treated as a reflection on the merits of the allegations.

However, the bench did not make any such observation, and simply adjourned the matter, recording that the CBI and the ED have filed status reports.

Case Title: EAS Sarma v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025