9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 254 - HC - Companies LawGrant of anticipatory bail - petitioner has signed forged letter of credits and other documents for availing credit facility from the Bank on behalf of A-1 Company. - the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner is 65 years old - offences alleged in the said complaint against the petitioner are under Section 128, 129, 447, 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, Section 209, 211 read with 628 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Section 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC - HELD THAT - The allegations levelled against the petitioner are prima facie serious in nature. The allegations are that petitioner was one of the signatories of the financials of A-1 company and Director in category C Company. The details of the same have been described in the summoning order dated 16.08.2019 of the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act). It is alleged that petitioner has signed forged letter of credits and other documents for availing credit facility from the Bank on behalf of A-1 Company. Thus, prima facie there are serious allegations of fraud committed by the petitioner in conspiracy with other co-accuseds. Perusal of para No. 8 (i) of the petition reveals that Ld. Counsel for the petitioner was not able to inspect the judicial record. It, therefore, cannot be said as to what was the report of process serving agency on the summons issued to the petitioner. Without seeing the copy of the report on summons, it cannot be said whether petitioner was properly served or not. This submission is, therefore, made without seeing the record. In case, the petitioner is correct to the extent that he was not duly served, the Ld. ASJ/ Special Judge after considering the submission of Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ld. counsel for SFIO and perusal of report on summon can pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Ld. ASJ/ Special Judge and make all his submissions made herein, before the Ld. Trial court as well. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and serious nature of offence and amount of cheating involved as well as allegation of forgery, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out - the anticipatory bail application is disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner. 2. Seriousness of allegations and nature of the offences. 3. Non-service of summons and issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs). 4. Applicability of twin conditions for bail under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. 5. Legal precedents and arguments presented by both parties. 6. Court's decision on the anticipatory bail application. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Anticipatory Bail: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Complaint Case No. 770/2019, titled SFIO v. Bhushan Steel Ltd. & Ors., pending in the Court of Ms. Neelam Singh, Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act). The offences alleged include violations under Sections 36(C), 89, 90, 128, 129, 229, 447, 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, Sections 209, 211 read with 628 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner argued for bail on the grounds of his advanced age (65 years) and severe health issues, including chronic diabetes, renal cell carcinoma, lung cancer, high blood pressure, and a recent heart attack requiring medical treatment. 2. Seriousness of Allegations and Nature of Offences: The allegations against the petitioner were serious, involving fraud amounting to approximately ?45,818 Crores. The petitioner, as a whole-time Director, was accused of submitting false documents to avail illegitimate funds from banks and failing to discharge his duties under the Companies Act. The court noted that the allegations included signing forged letters of credit and other documents for availing credit facilities from banks on behalf of the company. 3. Non-Service of Summons and Issuance of NBWs: The petitioner contended that he was not served with the summons and was unaware of the NBWs issued against him. The court observed that the petitioner had not been arrested during the investigation and that the issuance of NBWs by the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge was without legal justification. The petitioner argued that the service of summons was not properly effected as per Section 65 CrPC, and the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge should have issued bailable warrants first. The court noted that the petitioner had a reasonable apprehension of arrest before he could approach the Ld. Special Court. 4. Applicability of Twin Conditions for Bail under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013: The petitioner argued that the twin conditions for bail under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, were not applicable to anticipatory bail applications. The petitioner relied on several legal precedents, including "Nikesh Tarachand Saha Vs. Union of India" and "Dalip Singh Man and Anr. vs. Niranjan Singh," to support his argument. 5. Legal Precedents and Arguments Presented by Both Parties: The petitioner cited cases like "Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v State of Uttaranchal & Ors." and "Court on its Own Motion v. CBI" to argue against the issuance of NBWs and for the grant of anticipatory bail. The respondent opposed the bail application, highlighting the serious nature of the fraud and the petitioner's involvement. The respondent also pointed out that the Supreme Court had stayed the bail granted to a co-accused, indicating the gravity of the case. 6. Court's Decision on the Anticipatory Bail Application: The court considered the rival submissions and noted the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner. It observed that economic offences, such as the one in question, affect the economic fabric of society and should be treated with utmost seriousness. Citing the Supreme Court's stance on economic offences, the court held that anticipatory bail should be exercised sparingly in such cases. Consequently, the court did not find grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, it ordered that the NBWs issued against the petitioner be kept in abeyance until the next hearing date, allowing the petitioner to approach the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge and move an application for cancellation of NBWs and grant of bail. Conclusion: The anticipatory bail application was disposed of with the court denying the bail but providing temporary relief by keeping the NBWs in abeyance, allowing the petitioner to seek further legal recourse before the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act).
|
