2022 (11) TMI 350 - HC - Companies Law

Seeking grant of bail - SFIO - offences under Companies Act, 2013 and offences under the IPC. - extension of remand of judicial custody - applicants submits that the custody of the applicants was illegal between 31.05.2022 to 06.08.2022, inasmuch as, there was no judicial order of remand but a mere endorsement on the warrant was made which does not fulfill the legal requirement of a valid remand order. Whether on 31.05.2022 a speaking order was required to be passed and further the remand period beyond more than 15 days can be accepted to be legal? - HELD THAT - It is settled principle of law that courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing how the factual situation of the case they are asked to adjudicate upon fits the facts situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions to be reached in two cases. Observations of the courts are neither to be read as Euclid s Theorems nor as provisions of the statute, and are never to be taken out of contexts. Courts primarily interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another may not be enough. In the case of Harshad S. Mehta v. CBI 1992 (10) TMI 271 - DELHI HIGH COURT decided by this court, the question whether remand under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. has to be taken after every 15 days or not and whether after the initial remand of 15 days the accused can be remanded in perpetuity subject of course to the outer limit of 60/90 days was one of the issues. This Court in paragraph No. 22 of the said decision has held that in no case the Magistrate can authorise the detention beyond 90 days or 60 days as the case may be. But even beyond 15 days and up to the period of 60 days, the remand has to be taken of the accused 15 days each time. In the case in hand the applicants were taken into custody on 21.03.2022. The Status Report indicates that the investigation with respect to other accused persons is not complete in all respects. An apprehension has been raised by the prosecuting agency on the basis of the role of the respective applicants that the applicants being closely associated with various individuals and have considerable influence over most of the witnesses who were working under the applicants. Specific roles of the applicants have been detailed in respective Status Reports - It is thus seen that at this stage, it cannot be said that the constitutional right of the applicants for speedy trial is infringed and on the contrary this court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are not guilty of the offences alleged against them. The applicants are not entitled for grant of bail even on merits - Bail application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of custody between 31.05.2022 and 06.08.2022.
2. Requirement of a reasoned order for remand under Section 167(2) and Section 309 of Cr.P.C.
3. Entitlement to bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. post-filing of the complaint/charge sheet.
4. Merits of the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

Issue-Wise
Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Custody Between 31.05.2022 and 06.08.2022:
The applicants contended that their custody was illegal between 31.05.2022 and 06.08.2022 because there was no judicial order of remand, only an endorsement on the warrant. The court examined the remand orders and found that on 31.05.2022, the applicants were produced via video conferencing, and the Special Judge extended their remand without a formal application or reasoned order. However, the court noted that the complaint was filed on 19.05.2022, and the applicants were under valid judicial remand as of 06.08.2022. The court concluded that any irregularity in the remand order does not automatically entitle the applicants to bail.

2. Requirement of a Reasoned Order for Remand Under Section 167(2) and Section 309 of Cr.P.C.:
The applicants argued that each remand order requires a reasoned order and cannot exceed 15 days. The court referred to Section 167(2) and Section 309 of Cr.P.C., noting that a reasoned order is necessary, especially for police custody. However, the court found that post-filing of the complaint, the requirement for a reasoned order and the 15-day limit do not apply. The court emphasized that the remand process is to safeguard the liberty of the accused and monitor the proceedings, but once the charge sheet is filed, the procedure shifts to the trial stage.

3. Entitlement to Bail Under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Post-Filing of the Complaint/Charge Sheet:
The court examined whether the applicants were entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. after the complaint was filed. It cited the Supreme Court's rulings that filing a charge sheet within the stipulated time is sufficient compliance with Section 167(2). The court concluded that the applicants' right to default bail ceased once the complaint was filed within 60 days. Any irregularity in the remand order post-filing does not entitle the applicants to bail under Section 167(2).

4. Merits of the Bail Application Under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.:
On the merits, the court considered the specific roles of the applicants in the alleged fraud involving Rs. 5,435 Crores. The court noted that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public money need to be viewed seriously. The court found that the applicants had considerable influence over witnesses and could potentially tamper with evidence. The court referred to the Supreme Court's stance on economic offences and the need for a different approach in bail matters. Consequently, the court was not satisfied that the applicants were not guilty of the offences and denied bail on merits.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the bail applications, concluding that the applicants were not entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. post-filing of the complaint and on merits under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the serious nature of the economic offences and the potential influence of the applicants on the investigation and witnesses.

← Previous Next →