Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2019 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1556 - HC - Companies LawSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - company SEL had neither repaid the principal amount nor the interest accruing thereon (loan taken from Co-operative society) - money of the Cooperative Society siphoned off - jurisdiction of the court at Gurugram to entertain a complaint, the office of the company of the petitioner, namely, Sambhav Energy Limited, is situated at Chennai - HELD THAT:- This court does not find any substance in the question of Jurisdiction. Rather, this court finds substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the SFIO, wherein by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE VERSUS NITTIN JOHARI & ANOTHER [2019 (9) TMI 570 - SUPREME COURT], he has submitted that the courts at Gurugram have the jurisdiction. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since the office of the main company, controlling all the companies involved in the fraud, are situated at Gurugram, and all other coconspirators are participants in the chain of sequences, constituting the offences, therefore, it cannot be said that the Special Court at Gurugram does not have the jurisdiction. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be protected against his arrest or not? - HELD THAT:- This court is of the view that although right to seek anticipatory bail is not a fundamental right, yet an individual is having a right to life and liberty, as granted by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the said right can very well be curtailed by the procedure established by law. The normal procedure for curtailing the liberty of a person accused in offence is that the accused can be arrested even without warrants from the court. Same is the situation under the new Companies Act as well and the authorized officer/designated officer can arrest a person even without warrants issued from a court. However, to ensure that an innocent person is not unduly harassed by taking him into custody, the courts have been conferred a special power under Section 438 Cr. P.C. - So far as the present case is concerned, the investigation of the case is already complete. The investigating officer of the case had not even considered it appropriate to arrest the petitioner during the investigation. Therefore, the investigation of the case is not going to be hampered in any manner if the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail. So far as the allegations against the petitioner are concerned, this court is of the considered opinion that for the purpose of anticipatory bail, the petitioner has been able to explain his position to a considerable degree, so as to make this court exercise its power under Section 438 Cr.P.C.; for protecting him against his arrest. Although even the counsel for the SFIO has not disputed the fact that the twin conditions, as prescribed under Section 212 (6) are not attracted in the case against the petitioner, however, keeping in view the education, antecedents and character of the present petitioner, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not likely to flee from the course of justice. There is nothing on record to suggest that if the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, he would influence any witness in the case. As stated above, he had already left the company much before the start of the investigation. The petitioner may appear before the trial court on or before the next date of hearing fixed before the trial court - Petition allowed.
|