2022 (7) TMI 1125 - HC - Companies Law

Seeking grant of Bail - acts of misappropriation of huge sums of money by Bhushan Steel Ltd. and Bhushan Energy Ltd. - case of applicant is that the main accused Nitin Johri and Neeraj Singhal have been granted bail, therefore, the applicant also needs to be enlarged on bail - HELD THAT - As regards the legal embargo of Section 212(6), Sub-section-(i) has duly been complied with, as the Public Prosecutor (Ld. CGSC) has been given a chance to oppose the bail application. The Applicant is not guilty of the offence of which he is charged with, and therefore, it is opined, that he is not likely to commit any further offence while on bail. Hence, sub-section (ii) of Section 212(6) is also complied with. The Applicant is enlarged on bail on the following terms and conditions i. The applicant shall furnish a personal bond with two local sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; ii. He shall appear before the Court as and when directed; iii. In case he changes his address, he will inform the IO concerned and this Court also; Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C for offences under Sections 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and under Section 409 IPC in Complaint Case No. 770/2019.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an accused in the case, filed an application seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C for alleged offences under the Companies Act, 2013 and IPC. The respondent, represented by the CGSC, did not file a reply but argued the matter effectively. The accused had been arrested and the summoning order highlighted the failure to adhere to banking guidelines causing losses. The accused, a senior manager at UCO Bank, argued for bail based on his continued service, lack of fraud allegations, and lack of specific accusations in the complaint or investigation reports.

The complaint involved misappropriation by Bhushan Steel Ltd. and Bhushan Energy Ltd. Several stakeholders, including ex-promoters and directors, had been granted bail previously. The applicant's arguments for bail included his role as a bank employee, lack of direct involvement in fund misappropriation, and lack of clarity in the summoning order. The court considered legal aspects, including compliance with Section 212(6) and the need to protect personal liberty in the face of trial delays. The court granted bail with specific terms and conditions, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and distinguishing the applicant's role from the main accused.

The judgment did not express any views on the case's merits, and the applications were disposed of accordingly. The court's decision was communicated through the Court Master's signature for further action.