9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1360 - SC - Companies LawSeeking grant of bail - non-service of the summons on foreign entities - violation of the provisions of Section 447 of the Companies Act 2013 - HELD THAT - Having regard to the position as it remains regarding non-service of the summons on foreign entities, the period of custody already undergone and no immediate possibility of the trial commencing, we are of the considered view that the appellant would be entitled to the grant of bail. Having duly considered the provisions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act 2013, we are of the view that in the facts of the present case, the appellant ought to be granted the benefit of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 since the right to an expeditious trial is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions, as may be imposed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur in connection with Sessions Trial No 577 of 2020. The appeal is disposed off.
Issues:
Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to the petitioner who had been in custody for over two years, failure to effect service of summons on foreign entities, entitlement to bail under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act 2013, protection of the right to an expeditious trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Analysis: The Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner who had been in custody for more than two years. The petitioner had been arrested for an alleged violation of Section 447 of the Companies Act 2013. Despite being granted bail by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in connection with another complaint, the petitioner remained in custody due to the failure to effect service of summons on foreign entities. The Court noted that the right to an expeditious trial is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, directed the release of the petitioner on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Additional Director of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) filed an affidavit indicating that twenty accused were abroad, with no successful service of summons on them despite multiple attempts. The Court emphasized the importance of expeditious trials and the need to address the issue of non-service of summons on foreign entities. The Court directed that the proceedings be listed for further consideration on a specified date to review the steps taken to serve summons on the remaining accused. The Court considered the provisions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act 2013 and concluded that, given the circumstances of the case and the prolonged custody of the petitioner, bail should be granted. The Court highlighted the petitioner's extended period of custody, the lack of immediate trial commencement, and the constitutional protection of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in connection with the relevant Sessions Trial. In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by granting bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Court emphasized the need for an expeditious trial, the failure to serve summons on foreign entities, and the petitioner's prolonged custody as key factors in reaching its decision. The Court's judgment underscored the importance of upholding the right to a speedy trial and ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted efficiently and fairly.
|
