TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, therefore, deserves to be stayed. We order accordingly. The operation of the impugned order of the High Court is stayed but the interim relief granted to Respondent No.1/Neeraj Singal limited to his release on personal bond shall remain in force during the pendency of these proceedings, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions imposed by the High Court for his release and additionally to report to the concerned officer of SFIO on every Monday and Thursday between 10:30 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. and on such other day or time as directed by the officer concerned. We make it clear that the directions given in the interim order to the appellants [Union of India and Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)] shall remain stayed in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellants, brought to our notice the fact that despite being informed that this Court had listed the case for hearing on 30.08.2018 upon urgent mentioning on the previous day (i.e. on 29.08.2018), the High Court proceeded to issue directions on 29.08.2018 at 5.20 P.M., as a result of which Respondent No.1/Neeraj Singal has already been released and the direction given in the impugned order for his release has been implemented. However, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants submitted that they intend to continue with the present appeals as the findings and the observations made in the impugned order will have far reaching effects n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 212(7) of the Act for release on bail is ultra vires, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and thus strike down the same as being unconstitutional. B. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction/order in the nature of a writ directing that the condition in Section 212(8) of the Act that a person can be arrested by the SFIO, Respondent No. 2 herein, on the basis of material available in its possession and having reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of any offence punishable under Section 212(6) i.e. for an offence covered under Section 447 of the Act, is in the nature of a presumptive definitive opinion/conclusion which is arbitr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interim order to release Respondent No.1/Neeraj Singal came to be passed. The High Court issued its interim directions, prima facie, in the teeth of the decisions of this Court in Saurabh Kumar v. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Another (2014) 13 SCC 436 and Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others (2013) 1 SCC 314 . Further, the reasons assigned by the High Court in the impugned order for grant of interim relief are not confined to the issue of the validity of the stated sections of the Act or concerning grant of bail but prima facie impact upon issues concerning matters of investigation and lodging of the complaint and/or police report in respect of offences under the Act. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any case, the High Court ought to have applied the broad contours required to be kept in mind for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which aspect, we find, has not been adverted to at all in the impugned order. There is prima facie substance in the grievance of the appellants that the High Court has failed to consider matter such as the nature of gravity of the alleged offence. Moreover, we find that in the course of the impugned order, the High Court even proceeded to recall certain observations made by it in another case ( Poonam Malik v. Union of India [W.P.(Crl.) No.2384 of 2018] order dated 10th August 2018). 10. Considering the fact that prima facie we find that the observations made in the impugned order may have far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv) of the impugned order, namely, Respondent No.1/Neeraj Singal shall not be compelled by the SFIO to sign his statement under Section 217(4) read with Section 217(7) of the Companies Act. 12. We also grant liberty to the appellants to take out a formal application in these proceedings for recall of interim protection or for modification and/or imposing further conditions for the release of Respondent No.1/Neeraj Singal on personal bond. That application will be considered on its own merits. 13. As mentioned earlier, since the questions involved in the present appeals are linked with the issues to be decided by this Court in transferred cases in terms of the order dated 15.03.2018 in SLP(Crl) Diary No.9360/2018, we deem it appropri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
