2024 (5) TMI 571 - HC - Companies Law

Grant of temporary bail on medical grounds - twin provisions of Section 212 (6) (ii) of the Companies Act, 2013 satisfied or not - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in case of JAINAM RATHOD VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ANR 2022 (4) TMI 1421 - SUPREME COURT has granted bail to the appellant who was being prosecuted for violation of the provisions of Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 as well as various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 477A. A Special Leave petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27th January, 2020 with observations that it was always open for the appellant to move a fresh application for bail. The Hon ble Supreme Court has also noted it s judgment in the case of SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE VERSUS NITTIN JOHARI ANOTHER 2019 (9) TMI 570 - SUPREME COURT while granting bail to the appellant Jainam. The appellant was released in light of the fact that in the absence of a fair likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable period, personal liberty of the appellant is to be protected in case of delay in conclusion of the trial. The applicant was to be examined by a Panel of Doctors of J.J. Hospital, Mumbai comprising of Dean, General Physician, Medical Oncologist, Urologist and Gastrointestinal Oncosurgeon. The applicant was directed to appear before the Panel and report of the said Panel on the health condition of the applicant was called for. Thereafter, from time to time, various orders came to be passed by the Co-ordinate Benches. As such, the application for bail bearing No.2487 of 2022 was not finally disposed of. Having taken into consideration the entire history of the applicant as well as various decisions of the supreme Court and this Court, interim bail granted to the applicant by this Court stands confirmed - bail application allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Confirmation of bail on medical grounds.
2. Applicability of Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Precedents and legal principles for granting bail on medical grounds.

Summary:

Issue 1: Confirmation of Bail on Medical Grounds

The applicant, a 71-year-old man suffering from severe ailments including advanced-stage colon and stomach cancer, sought the confirmation of temporary bail granted on medical grounds. The applicant had been granted temporary bail by this Court on 30th September 2022, due to his serious health condition. The applicant's medical reports from Nanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital indicated a need for prolonged specialized care, which was not feasible in custody. The latest medical report dated 26th February 2024 confirmed the deteriorating health of the applicant, necessitating continuous specialized treatment and nursing care.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013

The applicant was arraigned as one of the accused in Company Petition No.20 of 2019 by the Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (SFIO) for offences punishable u/s 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Sections 417, 420 r/w 120-B of the IPC. The applicant's counsel argued that the twin conditions for bail under Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013, were not applicable as the applicant was "sick or infirm," which is an exception provided in the proviso to Section 212(6). The Court acknowledged that the applicant's medical condition fell within the exception, allowing the Court to grant bail.

Issue 3: Precedents and Legal Principles for Granting Bail on Medical Grounds

The applicant's counsel cited several precedents where bail was granted on medical grounds, including cases like Lalit Goyal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and another, Dr. P V Varavara Rao Vs. National Investigation Agency, and Father Stan Swamy Vs. State of Maharashtra. The Court noted these precedents, emphasizing the need to protect personal liberty in light of serious health conditions and the inadequacy of prison facilities to provide necessary medical care. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Jainam Rathod Vs. State of Haryana, which highlighted the importance of expeditious trials and the protection of personal liberty when trial delays are evident.

Order:

The Court confirmed the interim bail granted to the applicant on medical grounds, allowing the applicant to be enlarged on bail upon executing a P.R bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with sureties. Conditions were imposed, including attending the Special Court, not leaving the jurisdiction, surrendering the passport, and not tampering with evidence. The application was disposed of in these terms, and any pending interim applications were also disposed of.

← Previous Next →