Bail--Statutory Bail--Complaint filed within 60 days but cognizance not taken within 60 days--Petitioner entitled to default bail

JUDGMENT

Mr. Amit Rawal, J.:- This order of mine shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M No.20688 of 2019 titled as “Mukesh Modi V/s SFIO and another” and CRM-M No.20691 of 2019 titled as “Rahul Modi V/s SFIO and another” filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail.

FACTS IN BRIEF

1. The case, in hand, arises out of the investigation initiated by the Central Government i.e. Ministry of Corporate Affairs (in short ‘MCA’), wherein, MCA, on the basis of some material, framed an opinion and vide order dated 20.06.2018 directed investigation into affairs of Adarsh Group of Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (in short ‘the LLP’), to be conducted by Serious Fraud Investigating Officer (SFIO), New Delhi, under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 43(2) and (3)(c)(i) of Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (in short ‘the LLP’).

2. The petitioners stated to have been summoned on multiple occasions to join investigation for providing necessary information Thereafter, the petitioners were arrested on 10.12.2018 and produced before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, wherein, SFIO, vide application dated 11.12.2018, sought their remand and the Presiding Officer, granted three days’ police custody till 14.12.2018.

3. It is a matter of record that the petitioners preferred respective writ petitions bearing WP(Criminal) No.3842 & 3843 of 2018 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., before the High Court of Delhi, seeking declaration of their arrest to be illegal and void. Delhi High Court, vide common order dated 20.12.2018, held the order of arrest to be without jurisdiction, unlawful and illegal and noticing that the petitioners were cooperating with the investigation, granted interim relief while imposing various conditions including the embargo on their leaving the territorial jurisdiction of National Capital Region without permission. On 21.12.2018, the trial Court released the petitioners on bail

4. The aforementioned order was challenged by SFIO, vide SLP (Criminal) No.94-95 of 2019, before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 27.03.2019, the order of the Delhi High Court was set aside by holding the petitions in Delhi High Court were not maintainable and the petitioners were directed to surrender and remain present before the trial Court, on 01.04.2019 at 11 A.M.

5. As per averments in bail application, during the period of their release, the petitioners adhered to all the above conditions and did not leave the territorial jurisdiction of National Capital Region (NCR) or contravened any conditions of release, reflected from various summons issued to them from December 2018 to March 2019 (Annexure P-7), collectively.

6. The petitioners, in pursuance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, surrendered before the Special Court, at Gurugram on 01.04.2019 and sought regular bail before the Special Court at Gurugram.

7. The National Company Law Tribunal, vide order dated 04.10.2018 and 31.10.2018 (Annexure P-17) (collectively), appointed the Executive Officer, Mr. Shyam Murari Nigam (IRS) Retired, Member of Central Board of Direct Taxes, for Supervising all 22 companies units. The appeal preferred before National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had been disposed of vide order dated 07.12.2018.

8. On 15.04.2019, the petitioners served advance notice to SFIO seeking urgent interim bail before the learned Special Court owing to the health condition of their mother and grandmother respectively while relying upon medical record (Annexures P-10 to P-14). However, it is stated in the petition since the charge of Special Court was not assigned to any court between 15.04.2019 to 17.04.2019 the petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction of the special court for the said relief.

9. Vide CRM-M-17755-56 of 2019, the petitioners sought regular bail and interim relief in this court. Vide order dated 18.04.2019 (Annexure P