Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 570 - HC - Companies LawSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - signature of some of the shareholders is forged is incorrect - forged and fabricated Power of Attorney - offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of IPC with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT:- This court is of the opinion that non-availability of Original Power of Attorney alone would not call for any custodial interrogation. It can be seen that applicant Mukesh Bhanwarlal Bhandari, who is a senior citizen has appeared before the Investigating Officer on 09.06.2022, 26.06.2022, 16.08.2022, 23.08.2022. The applicant Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari also appeared on 09.06.2022, 22.06.2022, 14.08.2022, 16.08.2022 and 23.08.2022 before the Investigating Officer. The offences alleged against the applicants are under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the IPC. The maximum punishment is up to seven years with a fine. The offences in question are triable by Magistrate. There is no reasonable apprehension of the accused persons to tamper with the evidence or to influence the witnesses. They being permanent residents of the State of Gujarat, having their movable and immovable property therein, cannot be expected to flee from justice. There are no criminal antecedences except a few litigations between the parties. There is no significant interest of the public or of the State involved in the matter. The dispute predominantly relates to dominance on a company. There is a long-standing dispute between both the groups. The accused have undertaken that at any stage of the investigation if they are able to get the Original Power of Attorney, they would produce it before the Investigating Officer. It is thus seen that merely on the ground that the Original Power of Attorney is not available with the Investigating Officer, the accused cannot be denied the benefit of anticipatory bail when it is found that they have been able to prove all other factors in their favour. This Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to both the applicants. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned Police Station and also subject to the further conditions imposed. Application allowed.
|