Anticipatory-bail deposits sourced from a corporate debtor are CIRP assets payable to the IRP.

An FIR was registered against Rakhiben, whose husband and she were directors of Vimla Fuels and Metals Limited (“Corporate Debtor”), alleging cheating in relation to approximately ₹36 crore payable for an export transaction involving Vimla Resources FZE, Sharjah.

In proceedings seeking anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court directed Rakhiben to deposit ₹7.5 crore in two instalments as a condition for protection from coercive steps; ₹5.05 crore was ultimately deposited, including amounts transferred from the Corporate Debtor’s bank account on 4 August 2025 and 29 August 2025.

The anticipatory bail proceedings were thereafter disposed of.

The complainant subsequently sought withdrawal of the deposited amount.

The Court permitted withdrawal subject to furnishing a bank guarantee for the equivalent amount, including accrued interest.

Meanwhile, the National Company Law Tribunal admitted the Corporate Debtor into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), appointed the applicant as Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”), and imposed a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

The IRP sought disbursement of ₹5.05 crore, with accrued interest, on the ground that it constituted an asset of the Corporate Debtor required to be preserved during the CIRP.

1. Whether ₹5.05 crore deposited pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order for obtaining anticipatory bail, having been transferred from the Corporate Debtor’s bank account, constituted an asset of the Corporate Debtor subject to preservation under the IBC moratorium?

2. Whether the complainant was entitled to obtain disbursement of the entire deposited amount in the criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the commencement of CIRP and imposition of the moratorium?

3. Whether the deposited amount should be released to the IRP, while permitting the complainant to withdraw only the balance amount upon furnishing an equivalent bank guarantee?

The Court applied the insolvency framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, particularly the effect of a moratorium under Section 14, which requires preservation of the Corporate Debtor’s assets during CIRP and prevents their dissipation outside the insolvency process.

Amounts demonstrably transferred from the Corporate Debtor’s account remain assets of the Corporate Debtor and are to be dealt with through the CIRP.

The Court further distinguished a deposit imposed in criminal proceedings as a condition for anticipatory bail from an order for recovery or restitution of the alleged cheated amount; such a deposit is intended to demonstrate the accused’s bona fides and facilitate bail, not to confer an automatic right of recovery upon the complainant.

The Court also recognised that anticipatory bail remained unaffected, subject to the investigating officer seeking appropriate relief if the accused failed to cooperate with the investigation.

The Court found that ₹5.05 crore of the deposited amount had indisputably originated from the Corporate Debtor’s bank account.

Once CIRP had commenced and the Section 14 moratorium was in operation, that amount, together with the interest accrued on it, had to be preserved as part of the Corporate Debtor’s assets and could not be disbursed entirely to the complainant outside the insolvency process.

The Court rejected the argument that the criminal proceedings justified release of the whole amount, observing that the deposit had been directed only as a condition for anticipatory bail and was not intended to effect recovery of the allegedly defrauded money.

Accordingly, the IRP was entitled to receive the portion traceable to the Corporate Debtor, while the complainant could obtain only the remaining balance subject to adequate security.

The Registry was directed to disburse ₹5.05 crore, together with the interest accrued on that amount in the fixed deposit, to the IRP upon a proper application.

The complainant was permitted to obtain the balance amount remaining, including applicable interest, upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the equivalent sum.

The Court expressly declined to interfere with the anticipatory bail order and clarified that any alleged non-cooperation by the accused could be addressed by the Investigating Officer through an appropriate application before the jurisdictional court.