Companies Act, 2013
Proviso to Section 212(6)—Enlarging accused on bail in terms of provision—No person, accused of an offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act, which is a cognizable offence, shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the twin conditions as stipulated in Section 212(6) of Companies Act are fulfilled—First being that the PP has to be given an opportunity; and second being that in case the PP opposes the application, the Court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail—First proviso is an exception to the this rule and vests the discretion with the Court to release certain categories of persons including woman, infirm, sick or persons under 16 yrs on bail.
[Paras 39 & 40]
Proviso to Section 212(6)—Enlarging accused on bail in terms of provision—Discretion of court—Proviso to Section 212(6) of the Companies Act is only an enabling provision which vests discretion with courts to grant bail to certain categories of person—Such discretion is not to be used as a rule of thumb but rather depends on special circumstances and facts necessitating such release on bail while also considering the nature, gravity and seriousness of offence.
[Para 45]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 439(2)—Cancellation of bail—Consideration—While cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of CrPC the Courts must see whether the order granting bail was vitiated by any serious infirmity—Cogent and overwhelming circumstances are required for an order seeking cancellation of bail—Even where prima facie case is made out, the approach of the Courts is not to detain the accused by way of punishment, but to ensure if his presence would be readily available during trial or whether he is likely to abuse the liberty by tampering or influencing the witness.
[Para 49]
Section 482—Inherent powers of High Court—Exercise of—Petition for setting aside of order of the Special Judge granting bail to respondent/accused in a case with respect to offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act investigated by SFIO—Respondent is a woman aged 62 years and stated to be a senior citizen—Petitioner SFIO has not pointed out even one instance of any supervening or grave circumstance that has rendered the continuance of bail granted to the respondent no longer conducive to fair trial—Nothing on record to show that respondent has abused the liberty of bail granted to her or has tampered with evidence or has influenced the witnesses—Moreover, there is nothing on the record to suggest that arrest and further custody of respondent/accused would be essential for conducting the investigation, especially given that the other main accused including her husband have been granted interim protection in a ED matter pertaining to the same company and similar set of allegations—It is also not the case of the petitioner that the respondent has been found tampering with evidence—Moreover, admittedly the petitioner SFIO has already filed the detailed complaint, thus it is safe to say that the evidence which was to be collected already stands collected by the various departments—Cognizance has been taken and accused along with 92 others have been summoned—Petitioner SFIO has failed to point out any cogent reason behind seeking remand of the respondent to JC—Petitioner SFIO has merely in a vague and cursory manner stated that the respondent is a flight risk, or may tamper with the evidence, but in absence of any cogent, compelling reason the High Court cannot interfere with the said order and cancel the bail so granted—Respondent has appeared on several dates before the SFIO and has adhered to all the conditions imposed vide impugned order granting bail—Mere allegation of petitioner that the respondent has joined the investigation but is being evasive does not hold force—Petition dismissed.
[Para 55]
Section 482—Inherent powers of High Court—Exercise of—Petition for setting aside of order of the Special Judge granting bail to respondent/accused in a case with respect to offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act investigated by SFIO—Inherent power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash or set aside a bail order, works on a different footing as compared to cancellation and rejection of bail—High Courts under Section 482 CrPC can only interfere and entertain an order of the subordinate court if such order is unreasonable, illegal, perverse or based on irrelevant materials/evidence on record—High Courts will not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with an order of bail granted by Special Judge if there is no serious infirmity in it—Power under Section 482 CrPC can only be used to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice—Impugned order is a well-reasoned order based on relevant materials and evidence on record—Neither there is any infirmity nor perversity with order which would require interference of the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction—Special Judge has propounded cogent reasoning for granting bail to the respondent accused in terms of the beneficial proviso in Section 212 (6) of the Companies Act—Order granting bail to respondent/accused warrants no interference—Petition dismissed.
[Paras 56 to 61]