The High Court of Calcutta, while rejecting an application filed by the petitioner assailing the bail granted to the opposite party, on the ground that the Court failed to take into consideration the restrictions under Section 212 (6) of the Companies Act, held that the restrictions to bail in the special statute like the present one may not apply in those cases where the accused had co-operated during the investigation and had not been consciously arrested.
Brief Facts:
Pursuant to the direction of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, SFIO initiated an investigation with regard to the affairs of the Prayag Group of Companies. In the course of the investigation, the involvement of the opposite parties/accused in the alleged offenses transpired. They were interrogated and upon conclusion of investigation, a complaint was filed. Learned Judge took cognizance and issued summons upon the opposite parties/accused. They appeared before the trial court and were released on bail. The bail orders are presently assailed in these proceedings on the ground that the court had not taken into consideration the restrictions under Section 212 (6) of the Companies Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Judge did not give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the bail applications. He argued that the Court did not apply its mind and recorded its satisfaction that the accused were not guilty of the alleged offenses or are not likely to commit similar offence. Accordingly, the bail orders suffer from patent illegality and are liable to be set aside.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that their clients had co-operated in the course of investigation and had not been arrested.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that Section 212(6) of the Companies Act imposes restrictions on the matter of bail. The provision mandates the court to give an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor and in the event the Public Prosecutor opposes the bail, the court has to record its satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offense or is not likely to commit a similar offense in future before releasing the accused on bail.
The Court observed that it is true in the present case the court did not record such satisfaction while granting bail to the opposite parties/accused. However, it is admitted their bail applications were heard in the presence of the Public Prosecutor and the latter did not raise objection during the hearing. The restrictions to bail in the special statute like the present one may not apply in those cases where the accused had co-operated during the investigation and had not been consciously arrested.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, dismissing the application, held that the objection raised by SFIO with regard to non-consideration of restrictions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act while granting bail to opposite parties/accused is unmerited and the bail orders do not suffer from any illegality on such score.
Case Title: In Re: Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Gaurang Kanth and Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Case No.: C.R.M. 7657 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajdeep Majumder
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Satadru Lahiri
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
