Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 257 - HC - Companies LawSeeking grant of Regular Bail - siphoning-off the funds - commitment of fraud by swindling away the hard-earned money of the members/depositors of ACCSL, mainly belonging to the low and middle income groups - HELD THAT:- The co-accused of the petitioner, i.e Vijay Shukla, has also been granted the interim protection only and that too, in the circumstances when this Court had specifically noted in the impugned judgment that he was not accused of having committed the offence under Section 447 of the Act of 2013 and was only a signatory to the financials of the Company whereas the petitioner was one of the Directors in ACCSL as well as in some of the Companies comprised in AGC&L and she has categorically been alleged to have committed the offence under Section 447 of the Act of 2013. Again, mere custody of the petitioner since the said date, in itself, does not suffice at all to extend the relief of bail to her in the eventuality when Section 212(6) of the Act of 2013 is applicable to the present case. The observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India [2021 (2) TMI 1212 - SUPREME COURT], Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others [1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT] and Sanjay Chandra [2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT] also do not come to the rescue of the petitioner to seek her release on bail because the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are distinguishable from those of the cited above. In Union of India [2021 (2) TMI 1212 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court was dealing with the issue of “cancellation of bail” in a matter involving Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act and had, rather, observed that there was a vivid distinction between the parameters to be applied while considering the bail application vis-à-vis those, applicable while deciding a petition for its cancellation and moreover, the respondent-accused had been in custody in the said case for more than five years whereas the petitioner has moved this petition with a prayer for “grant of bail” and she is in custody for the last about 2½ years. The petitioner does not deserve the relief of regular bail and the petition in hand, being sans any merit, deserves dismissal - Petition dismissed.
|