2020 (5) TMI 429 - HC - Companies Law

Bail application - applicant has chosen to file the present bail application under sections 439 Cr.P.C. for immediate release till such time that the pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed - main case of applicant is that due to Covid-19 (Corona Virus) infection the applicants being a sick person has great risk to his life if he is kept in jail where there are much chances of he being infected by said Corona Virus - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the Committee has resolved to release the under trial prisoners on interim bail who are facing criminal cases in which the maximum sentence is of 7 years and presently confined in jails for a period of eight weeks by the competent courts. Thus the contention of Assistant Solicitor General Sri Gyan Prakash appearing on behalf of the respondent who vehemently argued that the applicant is not entitled for bail/interim bail as per the order passed by the Apex Court Suo Motu in the aforesaid writ petition by which a High Powered Committee has been constituted as the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the under trial prisoners as the offence in which the applicant has been confined in jail is punishable with a maximum sentence upto 10 years appears to have substance - Moreover so far as the risk of applicant being infected due to Corona Virus because of his illness in the lack of following strict norms of social distancing measures including face to face interaction is concerned it has been pointed by learned Assistant Solicitor General that the applicant is not such a sick person who is not able to perform normal pursuits of his life as he is only suffering from urinary infection and stated to be having low blood sugar for which there is adequate facility of his treatment in the jail hospital and the applicant had himself admitted that he was admitted in the jail hospital on 27.3.2020. Taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence which shakes the conscience of the society and public at large investigation being still pending and there are strong apprehension that there would be chances of tampering of evidence by the applicant the prayer of the applicant for grant of immediate release till such time that pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed is hereby refused - the prayer made in the present bail application for immediate release on bail till such time that pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed to the applicant namely Rahul Kothari is hereby rejected. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Threat to life and personal liberty due to COVID-19.
3. Previous bail granted by a different court.
4. Investigation by SFIO under the Companies Act, 2013.
5. Applicability of High Powered Committee's resolution on interim bail during COVID-19.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:
The applicant filed a bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking immediate release due to the threat posed by COVID-19. The application was heard through video conferencing. The applicant was previously arrested by the SFIO and remanded to judicial custody. The applicant had approached the Apex Court, which directed him to file a bail application before the High Court.

2. Threat to Life and Personal Liberty Due to COVID-19:
The applicant argued that due to the rampant spread of COVID-19, his life was at risk in jail, especially given his medical conditions, including urinary infection and high blood sugar. He claimed that the jail environment did not allow for proper social distancing or medical care, increasing his risk of infection. The applicant cited the Supreme Court's order directing states to consider releasing certain prisoners on interim bail or parole due to COVID-19.

3. Previous Bail Granted by a Different Court:
The applicant highlighted that he had previously been granted bail by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court in a related case involving the CBI. The Supreme Court had dismissed the CBI's appeal against this bail order. The applicant argued that since he was granted bail in the CBI case, he should also be granted bail in the present case under the Companies Act.

4. Investigation by SFIO under the Companies Act, 2013:
The SFIO was directed by the Central Government to investigate the affairs of Rotomac Global Pvt. Ltd. and other companies under section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013. The applicant was arrested based on material collected during the investigation, which indicated fraudulent activities causing significant financial losses to public sector banks and financial institutions. The SFIO opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant was involved in a serious economic offense with deep-rooted conspiracies.

5. Applicability of High Powered Committee's Resolution on Interim Bail During COVID-19:
The High Powered Committee in Uttar Pradesh had resolved to release undertrial prisoners on interim bail if the maximum sentence for their offense was seven years or less. The applicant's offense under sections 447 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, carried a maximum punishment of ten years, making him ineligible for interim bail under the committee's resolution. The court noted that the applicant's medical condition did not warrant immediate release, as adequate medical facilities were available in jail.

Judgment:
The court observed that the applicant sought immediate release due to COVID-19 but did not file a regular bail application on merits. The court found that the applicant's request for interim bail was not justified, given the nature and gravity of the offense and the ongoing investigation. The court directed the I.G. (Prison) to ensure the applicant's safety in jail and expedite the investigation. The court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the applicant's right to file a regular bail application.

Conclusion:
The bail application for immediate release due to COVID-19 was rejected. The court directed jail authorities to ensure the applicant's safety and expedite the investigation. The applicant was advised to file a regular bail application if needed.