Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Taranjeet Singh Bagga @ Sonu Singh – Appellant
Versus
Serious Fraud Investigation Office – Respondent
Bail Appln. 2347 of 2022
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Bail Application - Companies Act Offence - Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - Section 447 of Companies Act, 2013 - [Section 447, Companies Act, 2013] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 and its limitations on granting bail. It also referred to the decision in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nitin Johari & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 165 and the interpretation of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51. The court emphasized that the accused, who was not arrested during the investigation and for whom the investigating agency does not require custody, does not need to file a bail application upon appearing before the Trial Court. The court also highlighted the need for the accused to be given an opportunity to be heard if the Court deems remand necessary. The judgment clarified that it did not give any opinion on the merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, seeking bail, was implicated in a case under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. He was taken into custody at the instance of the Court without being arrested during the investigation. The accused argued that he was entitled to bail as he was not arrested during the investigation and the investigating agency did not seek his remand. The Court considered the provisions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the interpretation of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the accused, who was not arrested during the investigation and for whom the investigating agency does not require custody, does not need to file a bail application upon appearing before the Trial Court. The Court emphasized the need for the accused to be given an opportunity to be heard if the Court deems remand necessary. The Court granted bail to the accused on certain terms and conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused, who was not arrested during the investigation and for whom the investigating agency does not require custody, needed to file a bail application upon appearing before the Trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the accused, in such circumstances, does not need to file a bail application and should be given an opportunity to be heard if the Court deems remand necessary.
Final Decision: The Court granted bail to the accused on certain terms and conditions.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") by the applicant seeking regular bail in C.C. No. 245 of 2021 titled "Special Fraud Investigation Office v. Parul Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." pending before the learned Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Court, South-West, New Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter "Companies Act").
2. The present applicant was summoned in the instant case by virtue of summoning order dated 07.03.2022 vide which cognizance of offences inter-alia under section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 was taken by the Court concerned in C.C. No. 245 of 2021, wherein present applicant was arraigned as accused no. 10, among 12 accused persons. The applicant was summoned to appear on 25.05.2022, and upon entering his appearance, he was sent to judicial custody by the learned Trial Court. Subsequently, his application for grant of regular bail was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.07.2022.
3. The background of the present complaint against Parul Polymers Private Limited (hereinafter "PPPL") is that the said company had availed various credit facilities from Central Bank of India, due to non-payment of same as per terms and conditions, appropriate proceedings were initiated by the concerned Bank. During the course of litigation between the parties, this Court on 07.12.2015 had issued directions to Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter "SFIO") to investigate certain issues, and pursuant to same, SFIO conducted an investigation in limited scope and the report was submitted to this Court on 20.05.2016 as well as to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Thereafter, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs ordered investigation into the affairs of PPPL on 14.03.2017. The said investigation led to the filing of present complaint case.
4. The case of prosecution is that the main accused Suman Chadha (accused no. 2 in complaint) i.e. Director of PPPL used to procure plastic granules from large scale public sector undertakings as well as from local suppliers, and this was sold in cash to local vendors without watermarkwatermarkany tax invoices, whereas tax invoices for these cash sales were issued to various entities including many related parties to adjust the purchases. Similarly, tax invoices without any underlying goods were also issued to non-related parties who required it for availing credit of duty (VAT). In order to carry out this deception, several sham entities were formed by accused no. 2 in the name of his relatives and employees. The bank accounts and name of the entities were misused by Suman Chadha for routing of funds in the guise of sale/purchase of plastic granules and also for adjustment of sales of material sold in local market in cash without tax invoice. The cash so generated were deposited in the bank accounts of such entities, and PPPL received RTGS/cheques against the tax invoices raised in the name of such entities showing normal sales against tax invoices. However, no goods under these invoices were dispatched. Huge amount of money was also transferred through the banking channel from one company/entity to another entity for ballooning/inflating the turnover and to adjust the cash received against cash sales. This was done by PPPL by issuing fake/fictitious/bogus invoices of plastic granules and tax-free items like food grains. As there was no correlation between actual sales and purchase, the company did not fill up the particulars of purchases, order details, lorry number, dispatch details etc. Further, the total cash sales shown in VAT Returns for PPPL for the period from financial year 2012-13 to 2014-15 was Rs.16.44 crore which was much lower than actual cash deposited of Rs.73.60 crore by PPPL in its bank account in the same period.
5. The present applicant/accused is show
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an accused, who was not arrested during the investigation and for whom the investigating agency does not require custody, does not need to fil....
Economic offence allegations do not automatically justify remand; court must consider specific evidence of risk before denying bail, particularly for women under the Companies Act.
Twin-conditions in section 212(6) of the Companies Act would not apply to a case where the accused has never been arrested even till the stage of cognisance, and appears against summons issued by the....
An accused declared a proclaimed offender is generally not entitled to anticipatory bail; however, they may surrender before the trial court to request the recall of the proclamation and non-bailable....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
