TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng investigation or while his bail was being heard by the learned Trial Court after taking cognizance, but was never, taken into custody for three years and suddenly on 01.06.2022 when the allegations were still continuing, he was abruptly taken into custody for a reason which existed since last about three years. Moreover, being the Trial Court, it was competent to pass appropriate orders in the circumstances. The bail application was listed for further arguments for 02.06.2022 on which date the application was dismissed. The accused has been appearing before the Investigating Officer and thereafter before the Court diligently and his custody was never sought by the respondent. The petitioner was the Company Secretary in the Company of the accused no. 2 and his main accusation was that he had signed the Financial Statements in his capacity as the Company Secretary. The primary accused, namely, Mr. Neeraj Singhal and Mr. Nitin Johari have already been granted interim bail. The allegations pertain to years-2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and the petitioner neither before nor after has been involved in any criminal offence. The petitioner is hereby admitted to bail on submitting a Bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng accused persons on 04.07.2022. The accused appeared before the learned Trial Court on 01.06.2022 and the bail application could not be taken up for arguments due to paucity of time and was adjourned to 02.06.2022 at 2:30 pm. However, the petitioner was taken into judicial custody by observing that there was no protection from the Superior Court. 6. The impugned order dated 01.06.2022, vide which the petitioner was taken into judicial custody, has been challenged in the present petition. 7. It is asserted that the role of the accused as assigned in the complaint is that he was a signatory to the Financial Statements of the accused No. 2/Company for the FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 in his capacity as the Company Secretary, which he had signed for the purpose of regulatory filing of the Company. There is no active role assigned to the petitioner in the financial mismanagement of the Company. The respondent-SFIO had never requisitioned the petitioner for further investigations nor ever sought physical custody of the petitioner. The petitioner has been regularly appearing before the Trial Court on every date without any default. The investigations got completed and the complaint was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The promoters of BSL needed to infuse capital in the Company in order to avail credit facilities from lender Banks for its steel plant, for which purpose they required a level of debt equity, therefore, the expromoters assisted by their employees and close associates, through a series of concerted actions, using a complex web of Companies and financial transactions, siphoned off funds from BSL and Bhushan Energy Limited (BEL) starting from the year 2009-2010 and also used the funds to purchase immovable and movable properties. 11. During the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, an amount of Rs. 1150.58 Crore was transferred to different Companies and the ex-promoters invested these amounts in preference shares of BSL. During this period, BSL and BEL extended capital advances amounting to Rs. 1208.50 Crore to 18 Category B and Rs. 561.45 Crore 14 Category C Companies, controlled by the expromoters. The funds were transferred from the various Accounts of BSL and BEL. These Companies further transferred the funds to Category B and Category C Companies in the smaller amounts as loans and advances or as investments. The Companies further layered funds received to the tune of Rs. 1150.58 Cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the previous year figures of Rs. 3,00,00,00,000/-, BSL was under severe financial crunch but still it repaid the investment of Rs. 3,00,00,00,000/- to BEL. This was a result of circular transactions and without any actual flow of funds. Various transactions were found to have been undertaken by Brij Bhushan Singal and Neeraj Singal. It was claimed that the petitioner being the Company Secretary of BEL was privy to all Board meetings and was a signatory to the financial statement, wherein there was a major irregularity with respect to investment in BSL. 15. It is thus asserted that as per the investigations it is evident that he was actively involved in the commission of offence and has been declined bail by the learned Special Court. Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, starts with non-obstante clause and the twin conditions stipulated under this Section are mandatory in nature. These conditions are that the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application and the court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believe that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly, the petitioner had no interim protection of any superior Court during investigation or while his bail was being heard by the learned Trial Court after taking cognizance, but was never, taken into custody for three years and suddenly on 01.06.2022 when the allegations were still continuing, he was abruptly taken into custody for a reason which existed since last about three years. Moreover, being the Trial Court, it was competent to pass appropriate orders in the circumstances. The bail application was listed for further arguments for 02.06.2022 on which date the application was dismissed. 22. The accused has been appearing before the Investigating Officer and thereafter before the Court diligently and his custody was never sought by the respondent. The petitioner was the Company Secretary in the Company of the accused no. 2 and his main accusation was that he had signed the Financial Statements in his capacity as the Company Secretary. The primary accused, namely, Mr. Neeraj Singhal and Mr. Nitin Johari have already been granted interim bail. The allegations pertain to years-2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and the petitioner neither before nor after has been involved in any crim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
