Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Mukesh Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Serious Fraud Investigation Office - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2054/2022
Decided On : 22-07-2022
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Ms. Nazia Parveen, Advocates, for the Petitioner; Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat, Mr. Alesander Mathai, M.r Tarun, Ms. Arti, Advocates, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to protect the personal liberty of the accused in the face of a delay in the conclusion of the trial, as well as the stringent view taken by the court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences.
Headnote:
Companies Act - Offences under Sections 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and under Section 409 IPC - Section 212(6) - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the bail application for offences committed under Sections 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and under Section 409 IPC. The court also referred to Section 212(6) of the Companies Act 2013 and highlighted the need to protect the personal liberty of the accused in the face of a delay in the conclusion of the trial, as well as the stringent view taken by the court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a bail application for offences committed under Sections 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and under Section 409 IPC. The accused had been appearing before the trial Court for the last three years and was never arrested. The complaint pertained to the acts of misappropriation of huge sums of money by Bhushan Steel Ltd. and Bhushan Energy Ltd.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused, being a bank employee, was not accused of fraud but only of neglect of duties. The court also noted that the main accused had been granted bail, and therefore, the applicant also needed to be enlarged on bail. The court also discussed the legal embargo of Section 212(6) and granted bail to the applicant.
Issues: The issues included the neglect of duties by the accused, the delay in the conclusion of the trial, and the legal embargo of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to protect the personal liberty of the accused in the face of a delay in the conclusion of the trial, as well as the stringent view taken by the court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant on certain terms and conditions and disposed of the applications accordingly. The court also clarified that it had not expressed any views on merits in the present case.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral) - This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of accused No. A-191 - Mukesh Kumar Singh, for grant of bail in respect of offences committed under Sections 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and under Section 409 IPC in Complaint Case No. 770/2019.
2. This court had issued notice to Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned CGSC on 11.07.2022, who accepted the same. On 11.07.2022, the court had also granted bail in BAIL APPLN. 2053/2022, BAIL APPLN. 2055/2022, and BAIL APPLN. 2056/2022 wherein the applicants were all retired UCO Bank's General Managers or Assistant General Managers. The present bail application was listed separately as the Applicant is still working with UCO Bank. Other than that, the matter is to be heard on the same footing.
3. The Ld. CGSC has stated that he does not wish to file a reply and has instructions to argue the matter, which he has very ably done.
4. The accused person has been arrested on 04.07.2022. The reason for summoning have been given in para 2.48 of the summoning order dated 16.08.2019 which reads as under:
'2.48: A-190 to 198 failed to discharge their duties at the time of discounting of documents under LCs and did not adhere to the system, procedure and guidelines issued by banks/RBI, as a result committed various acts and omission which caused loss to the banks.'
5. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the applicant has been appearing before the trial Court for the last three years and was never arrested.
6. As stated above, the applicant is still working with UCO Bank and is a senior manager.
7. The complaint pertains to the acts of misappropriation of huge sums of money by Bhushan Steel Ltd. and Bhushan Energy Ltd.
8. The the main stakeholders of both the company i.e. BSL and the Bank i.e., PNB have already been enlarged on bail/interim bail:
a. Interim relief granted till pendency of proceedings to ex-promoter/director of the company, Neeraj Singal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.09.2018 in SLP (Crl.) No. 7241 of 2018.
b. On grounds of parity, co-accused, Nittin Johari, ex-promoter of BSL in the same case was granted bail in the matter, Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. dated 18.08.2021[MANU/SCOR/25854/2021].
c. Additionally, the same summoning order dated 16.08.2019 has been quashed by a coordinate bench of this court against Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi, who was a Nominee Director appointed PNB on the board of BSL. [Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi v. SFIO, CRL. REV.P. No. 1308 of 2019 vide order dated 21.09.2020].
d. Co-accused, Mr. Pankaj Mahajan who is also a practicing Chartered Accountant at the firm, M/s. A.C. Gupta & Associates is also admitted on bail by a coordinate bench of this court in BAIL APPLN No. 1813 of 2022 titled Pankaj Mahajan v. SFIO dated 29.06.2022.
e. A coordinate bench of this court also enlarged Rupesh Purwar, co-accused no. 203 on bail. He was signatory to the Financial Statements of the 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. [Rupesh Purwar v. SFIO, CRL. M.C. No. 2878 of 2022 dated 29.06.2022]
f. This Court granted bail to Sunil Bhatia, Chartered Accountant of the firm, ASRN & Associates who was responsible for preparing the Stock Audit Report dated 15.02.2017 by BAIL APPLN. 1802/2022 titled Sunil Bhatia v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office dated 07.07.2022.
g. This Court granted bail to retired General Managers and Assistant General Managers of UCO Bank by BAIL APPLN 2053/2022, BAIL APPLN. 2055/2022 and BAIL APPLN 2056/2022 dated 11.07.2022.
h. This Court granted bail to two Chartered Accountants by BAIL APPLN. 1950/2022 and BAIL APPLN. 1825/2022 dated 18.07.2022.
9. The applicant in support of his bail application has argued similar grounds and I am prima facie agreeable with the same:
a. He is still in service of the bank.
b. The Applicant is not accused of fraud and the only allegation is of ne
