9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 Cod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epabali Dutta, Adv, Ms. Sharath Nambiar,Adv, Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam,Adv, Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. ORDER 1 Leave granted. 2 On 11 April 2022, the following order was passed by this Court: 1 The petitioner has been arrested on 19 March 2020 in connection with an alleged violation of the provisions of Section 447 of the Companies Act 2013. A complaint has been filed by the Serio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 We place the SFIO on notice that by the next date of listing of these proceedings, this Court shall be apprised on affidavit of the steps which have been taken to effect service of the summons on the remaining accused who are yet to appear as noted above. Failing adequate steps being taken in that regard, this Court would consider the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of bail. The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the appellant has been in custody as an under-trial for two years and five months. Moreover, it has been submitted that except for the appellant, no other private accused continues to be in custody. 4 As noted in the previous order dated 11 April 2022, the appellant has been granted bail by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
