2019 (12) TMI 479 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of anticipatory bail - petitioner acted as a guarantor to a loan facility obtained by one of the sister concern Society of the Company i.e. Prabhu Dayal Memorial Religious Educational Association. The said Society defaulted in repayment of the loan - all the bank accounts of accused company and other directors have been freezed to stop the further movement of invested amount of the investors - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the serious allegations mentioned above against the petitioner, who has played key role in the present case and due to the material documents which are required to be seized from the petitioner, for which custodial interrogation is required, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of financial irregularities and conspiracy.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Grant of Anticipatory Bail
- The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No.59 of 2019 under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B of IPC.
- The petitioner, a minority shareholder, made efforts to regain control of the company to complete a real estate project.
- The petitioner settled with a lending bank to resolve financial issues but faced challenges due to insolvency proceedings.
- Homebuyers filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court, leading to an out-of-court settlement.
- The petitioner cooperated with authorities during the investigation, proposing settlements to resolve the matter.
- The State opposed anticipatory bail, citing freezing of bank accounts and initiation of embargo proceedings.
- Allegations included outstanding payments, dubious transactions, and discrepancies in financial reporting.
- Accused directors were accused of receiving high salaries despite company losses and engaging in related party transactions.
- The State argued for custodial interrogation to uncover the conspiracy and trace the money trail.
- The court denied anticipatory bail, considering the seriousness of allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.

Conclusion:
The judgment denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner due to the serious nature of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation, and the complexities surrounding financial irregularities and conspiracy in the case.