2019 (11) TMI 347 - HC - Indian Laws

Anticipatory bail - siphoning of funds - it is alleged that alleged that the funds from Bhushan Steel Ltd. and Bhushan Energy Ltd. were siphoned off through a complex web of companies - HELD THAT - This Court finds no reason why the petitioner s application would not be given the consideration it deserves. However, given the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case; considering that the petitioner (Shri Brij Bhushan) is 82 years of age and was not been arrested during the span of investigation and considering that Smt. Ritu Singal is aged 47 years and is woman and a part of the family, which allegedly control the companies, this Court is of the view that it would be apposite that the petitioners not be arrested immediately. The petitioners shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, that is. 14.10.2019 and are liberty to apply for a regular bail. In the event, the trial court declines their applications, the said order would not be given effect to for a period of seven days, thereafter, and during this period, the petitioners would not be arrested. This would enable the petitioners to avail any other remedies as available in law. Bail application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Anticipatory bail sought under Sections 439(2) and 436(1)(A)(D) of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Allegations of siphoning funds through a complex network of companies.
3. Concerns regarding denial of bail and health conditions of the petitioners.
4. Contestation on the maintainability of anticipatory bail during investigation phase.
5. Specific conditions for bail under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.
6. Seriousness of economic offences as a ground for denying bail.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed applications seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a complaint by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office against 287 persons regarding the conduct of Bhushan Steel Limited and other companies. The complaint alleges siphoning of funds through a complex network of companies, involving shell companies and accommodation entries.

2. The petitioners, including an 82-year-old individual and his daughter-in-law, fear denial of bail upon summons issuance. They argue that their age, health conditions, and non-arrest during the investigation warrant anticipatory bail to avoid immediate arrest.

3. The respondent contests the petitions on grounds that anticipatory bail should be sought during the investigation phase. Additionally, specific conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 must be met, requiring the court to determine if the petitioners are not guilty of the charged offence. The seriousness of economic offences is highlighted as a reason to deny bail.

4. The court refrains from delving into the contentions at this stage, leaving them for the trial court's consideration during the bail application process. It acknowledges the peculiar circumstances, including the advanced age of one petitioner and the familial association of the other petitioner with the business under scrutiny.

5. The court directs the petitioners to appear before the trial court and apply for regular bail, granting a seven-day buffer period post any denial by the trial court to avoid immediate arrest. The order is passed considering the specific circumstances of the case and should not be considered a precedent.

6. Both parties are allowed to present their contentions before the trial court, and the bail applications are disposed of accordingly.