9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese amounts floated various companies numbering more than 100 in which said Mukesh Modi or his relatives were the Directors and the Co-operative society advanced loans to the said companies which were never repaid and thus the amount collected from innocent investors was siphoned off. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has never been a signatory to any Bank account, or employee or advisor of Sears Bilt P.Ltd. and has nothing to do with the said company. It is alleged that the petitioner has siphoned off Rs.30.21 crores from Adarsh Buildestate Ltd. (ABL) which was actually the funds of Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (ACCL). Admittedly, the Indian Fibres Ltd. is the company owned and managed by the petitioner and the same is not arraigned as accused in the present case. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 73 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 58-A of the Companies Act, 1956 pertain to company asking/investing deposits. It is vehemently contended that the petitioner and other co-accused have not taken any deposit within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Companies (Accepting of Deposit) Rules, 1975, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... past conduct of the petitioner vis-à-vis initiation of proclamation proceedings would also show that the petitioner deliberately avoided execution of repeated processes/warrants issued by the court and therefore, in view of the law laid down in Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2021) SCC Online SC 955, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 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 an 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate to leave the petitioner to be taken into custody. If the petitioner is, ultimately found guilty by the trial court, he would be very much there to suffer sentence for the same in accordance with law. But it would not be reasonable to make him suffer incarceration even before he is adjudged guilty, particularly with reference to the facts as state above. It is also to be borne in mind, while examining the reliance put by the respondent upon Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. case (supra) that unlike the Companies Act, 2013, in a case of money-laundering under the PMLA Act, which is a special legislation, it involves many stages of "placement", "layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origin" and "interrogation i.e. funds used to acquire various assets" and as such requires systematic and analysed investigation. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors., the Supreme Court took note of the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation and in the facts and circumstances, it was deemed necessary that the investigating agency be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. The Companies Act, is a complete Statute in itself and distinguishable from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the materials which might have been concealed and grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Admittedly, the investigation of the present case is already complete and no further recovery is to be made from the petitioner. In that eventuality, it would not be justified to put the petitioner put that bars as no useful purpose would be served. As a matter of fact, if indeed, investigation is complete, the normal implication would be that there is no occasion for the investigating agency to require the custody of an accused, because there would have been nothing in his behavior requiring such a step. In other words, an accused, who is granted anticipatory bail would continue to be at liberty when the chargesheet is filed and there would be no necessity for a direction by the court that he be arrested and further that he had cooperated with the investigation. The Supreme Court in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. SLP (Crl.) No.5442 of 2021 decided on 16.08.2021 while observing that it is not essential in every case involving cognizable & non-bailable offence to take the accused into custody at the time o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was allowed vide order dated 13.01.2023 restraining the respondent-SFIO from initiating coercive steps. The details of the co-accused released on bail, either by this Court or by the Supreme Court, are as follows:- (i) Anticipatory bail to Bharat Mardia by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2019. (ii) Regular bail to Vivek Harivyasi by the Supreme Court vide order dated 17.12.2020. (iii) Regular bail to Priyanka Modi by the Supreme Court vide order dated 07.02.2022. In view of above discussions and considering the fact that investigation of the case is complete; nothing more is to be recovered from the petitioner; undisputedly the petitioner fully cooperated with the investigating agency; apart from the undertaking given before this Court to the effect that the petitioner is ready and wiling to join the investigation, if any; and also keeping in view the education, antecedents and character of the present petitioner, the petitioner is not likely to flee from the course of justice since 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; and that admittedly, the petitioner has alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
