JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Vikram Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sankalp Narain and Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the S.F.I.O. through video conferencing.

2. Prayer made in the aforesaid application is quoted below :

“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Application for Interim Relief, and the applicant namely, Mr. Rahul Kothari may be released on Interim Bail during the pendency of the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36542 of 2020 (Rahul Kothari Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Officer) on such terms and conditions as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, so as to meet the ends of justice; Any other orders or direction which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the matter, may also be passed in the interest of justice.”

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that both father and mother of the applicant were suffering from Covid-19 disease and were in critical condition. Father of the applicant also met with an accident. No one is to look after them in the house. Applicant is the only son. Thus, referring to the documents annexed with the interim bail application prayer was made to allow the interim bail application.

4. Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the S.F.I.O. argued that earlier the applicant had also approached this Court for interim bail on other grounds but same was rejected. Since argument has been completed on the main bail application, therefore, interim bail application cannot be allowed. At this juncture learned counsel appearing for the S.F.I.O. also referred to the prayer made in the interim bail application and prayed for rejection of the application.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and going through the affidavit annexed with the interim bail application and also the documents annexed therewith, the court is of the view that interim bail application moved by the applicant is not liable to be allowed as main bail application moved by the applicant is being decided today itself.

6. Thus, the interim bail application is hereby rejected.

ORDER ON CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 36542 of 2020

7. This application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant Rahul Kothari on bail in S.T. No. 577 of 2020 (SFIO Vs. Rotomac Global Pvt. Ltd. and others) for the alleged offences under Sections 36 (c ) r/w 447, 185, 186, 447, 448 r/w 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 211 r/w 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.

8. Heard Shri Vikram Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sankalp Narain and Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the S.F.I.O. through video conferencing.

9. Sri Chaudhary, learned Sr. Advocate submits that present bail application has been moved taking recourse to the provisions of Sections 167 and 439 Cr.P.C. both. Although no regular bail application has been moved before the court below yet keeping in view the pandemic situation in the country and non regular functioning of the District/Sessions Court regular bail prayer of the applicant could be heard and decided by this Court itself. It is also argued that initially one FIR was lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) against the applicant and he was arrested and thereafter applicant moved bail application and he was allowed on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. C.B.I. approached the Apex Court but the S.L.P. was rejected. It was next contended that since the applicant was allowed on bail on the basis of same set of facts in the case started by the