JUDGMENT :

Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The gravamen of the instant petition is ingrained in the im-pugned order of bail, inasmuch as, despite the respondent being allegedly an active partner in commission of a huge financial scam, yet he has been enlarged on regular bail by the learned trial Court concerned, whereas, his co-accused, who is on a co-equal pedestal as him, has been declined the relief of bail upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2. The prime grievance woven by the petitioner in the instant petition, is that, the learned trial Court concerned, while granting regular bail to the respondent vide order dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure P-1), has turned a blind eye to the material facts indicative of respondent's culpability in commission of a serious economic office. Consequently, the instant petition, as cast under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. and wherein becomes assailed the order (supra), aims at securing the relief of cancellation of bail granted to the respondent.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner stems from there being utter defiance of the stringent conditions, as envisaged under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013').

4. The second limb of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that, non-arraignment of respondent's company has been erroneously projected as one of the grounds by the learned trial Court behind release of the respondent on bail. He counters this observation by arguing that, since Section 448 of the Act of 2013 is applicable only in the case of maker of a falsified statement, therefore, when in the instant case, the sig-natory(ies) to the falsified balance sheet(s) concerned is only the respondent, therefore, there was no necessity for his company becoming arraigned. Moreover, since Section 448 of the Act of 2013 is applicable in the case of maker of a falsified statement only, therefore, when in the instant case, the signatory to the balance sheet(s) concerned is the Director (petitioner), therefore, his company was not liable to be made an accused for offence under Section 448. Furthermore, the use of falsified balance sheet(s) to derive any benefit is not a precondition for invoking the provisions of Section 448, inasmuch as, mere making of a misstatement and/or false statement itself is sufficient to invoke the provisions (supra).

5. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Section 2(76) of the Act of 2013 has also been illegally deployed in favour of the respondent by the learned trial Court while drawing the impugned order (supra), inasmuch as, it has been wrongly recorded therein that, in the present case, none of the director(s), manager(s) or their relative(s) was a director or manager in either of the companies, with which "related party transactions" allegedly occurred. He assails this observation by arguing that, in the investigation report, co-accused Anil Jindal (kingpin of the scam) has been unveiled to have exercised significant control and influence over all the entities/companies forming part of "SRS Group". In fact, the respondent has himself, in his statement on oath, besides making an admission in the above regard, also admitted that he became a director in the company concerned at the behest of co-accused Anil Jindal. Moreover, though the balance sheet(s) carried entries depicting transactions inter se the respondent's company and SRS Group Companies, however, non recital thereof specifically as "related party transactions" makes the disclosure of such entries to be futile for the relevant purpose and tantamount to omission of material facts.

6. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that, the respondent was admittedly having acquaintance with the co/main accused Anil Jindal since 2004 and he was entering in