The principle of vicarious liability does not apply to criminal law in absence of statutory provisions, as established in prior rulings regarding the responsibility of company directors.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in FIR No. 206 of 2021, dated 23.8.2021, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406, 120-B, and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC). The petitionerhas been in judicial custody since 30.7.2024. The petitioner was falsely implicated. The complaint was filed against Arise India Jewel Real Private Limited and others. The petitioner has been implicated as a Director of the company, but he is not a Director as per the copy of the Article of Association. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in Judicial custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint stating that accused No. 1 is a registered Company and a legal entity. The petitioner is one of the Directors and is responsible for the daily affairs of the Company. The Company opened a branch at Baddi and induced the people to invest with the assurance of paying heavy interest. The informant invested a sum of Rs.11,27,000/-. The other people also invested. The total investment was Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The Company shut down the branch in February 2020. The money was not paid to the investors. The salary was not paid to the employees. Therefore, it was prayed that an action be taken. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The presence of the petitioner was secured by way of a production warrant. The Company was investing in real estate and the companies manufacturing fast-moving consumer goods products. The investment failed due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Six FIRs were registered against the petitioner and the Company. Anirudh Prasad is yet to be arrested. The matter was listed for consideration of charge on 21.12.2024.

3. I have heard Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is not the Director of the Company, which is evident from the Articles of Association, which shows the names of Anirudh Prasad Tripathi and Bhola Nath Sahni as Directors of the Company. The petitioner cannot be held liable by applying the principle of vicarious liability because no such principle applies in criminal law. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company and he is liable by virtue of his position in the Company. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: -

“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the comp