2022 (4) TMI 1421 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of Bail application - ground was made out for the grant of bail on the ground of parity with the other accused who have been granted bail - Section 447 of the Companies Act 2013 and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code 1860 including Sections 406 417 418 420 467 468 471 474 and 477A - HELD THAT - The appellant is in custody since 28 August 2019. 187 accused are named in the criminal case by the prosecution. It is stated in the counter affidavit that all except 27 of them have appeared. It is evident that even as regards the balance proclamation proceedings are intended to be initiated pursuant to the order of the Special judge dated 25 March 2022. The proceedings are now listed before the Special Judge in July 2022. While the provisions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act 2013 must be borne in mind equally it is necessary to protect the constitutional right to an expeditious trial in a situation where a large number of accused implicated in a criminal trial would necessarily result in a delay in its conclusion. The role of the appellant must be distinguished from the role of the main accused. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of bail application by a Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
- Grounds for denial of bail based on previous applications and lack of parity with other accused.
- Allegations of violations of the Companies Act 2013 and Indian Penal Code.
- Length of custody, involvement of multiple accused, and delay in trial completion.
- Arguments for and against bail by counsels.
- Interpretation of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act 2013.
- Consideration of personal liberty and expeditious trial in granting bail.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the rejection of a bail application by a Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, citing reasons related to a previous dismissal of bail on merits and lack of grounds for bail based on parity with other accused who had been granted bail. The case involved a complaint lodged under the Companies Act 2013 and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, leading to the arrest of the appellant. Despite multiple unsuccessful attempts for bail, the appellant remained in custody for almost three years.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the appellant cooperated with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), was arrested after the complaint was lodged, and highlighted the extended period of custody and the disparity in bail decisions among co-accused. On the other hand, SFIO opposed bail, emphasizing non-fulfillment of conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act 2013 and the appellant's involvement in providing accommodation entries to the main accused.

The Supreme Court considered the delay in trial completion due to the involvement of numerous accused and the initiation of proclamation proceedings against some individuals. Despite the interpretation of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act 2013 and the stringent view on economic offenses, the Court emphasized the need to protect the appellant's personal liberty and ensure an expeditious trial. Drawing a distinction between the appellant's role and that of the main accused, the Court granted bail to the appellant, considering the prolonged custody period and the constitutional right to a timely trial.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the release of the appellant on bail, subject to conditions set by the Special Judge overseeing the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing personal liberty with the expeditious conclusion of trials, especially in cases involving multiple accused and potential delays in proceedings.