1996 (8) TMI 420 - HC - Companies Law

Petition for bail denied due to active participation in unauthorized transactions. Court stresses seriousness of economic offences.

The petition for bail was dismissed by the court. The court found that the petitioner's case was independent of a previously released accused and that the ... Offences by companies Issues Involved:1. Consistency in granting bail to similarly placed accused.2. Vicarious liability of the petitioner as chairperson of the company.3. Justification for arrest and likelihood of fleeing or tampering with witnesses.Detailed Analysis:1. Consistency in Granting Bail to Similarly Placed AccusedThe petitioner contended that since another accused in a similar position was released on bail, she should also be granted bail for the sake of consistency. She relied on decisions from the Allahabad High Court in *Nanha v. State of Uttar Pradesh* and the Delhi High Court in *Binoy Jacob v. Central Bureau of Investigation*, emphasizing that judicial consistency is a sound principle and discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily. However, the court noted that the charge against the petitioner is independent and distinct from that of Mr. Bhaskaran, who was not a co-accused. The funds remitted by Smt. Suseela were suspected to be the petitioner's funds, and the nature of accusations and material available differed significantly. Therefore, the release of Mr. Bhaskaran was not a criterion for granting bail to the petitioner.2. Vicarious Liability of the Petitioner as Chairperson of the CompanyThe petitioner argued that she was not in charge of and responsible for the company's business, merely being a chairperson due to her seniority in the family. She cited the Supreme Court decision in *Sham Sunder v. State of Haryana*, which discusses partners' liability in a firm, including sleeping partners and those not involved in day-to-day management. The court, however, found that the circumstances, including the petitioner's consent to unauthorized transactions and the benefit she derived from them, indicated her active participation in the company's affairs. The court concluded that the petitioner had control over the company's business at the relevant time and thus could not escape vicarious liability.3. Justification for Arrest and Likelihood of Fleeing or Tampering with WitnessesThe petitioner argued that her arrest was unjustified and that she posed no risk of fleeing or tampering with witnesses. She cited the Supreme Court decision in *Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.*, which emphasizes the need for justification beyond the mere power to arrest. The court acknowledged this principle but found that in the petitioner's case, there was reasonable satisfaction regarding her complicity in the crime and the need for arrest. The court also considered the cumulative effect of all circumstances, noting the seriousness of the economic offences involved and the potential impact on the nation's economy. The court referenced the Supreme Court's caution in *Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote* against pre-judging the case while deciding bail applications.The court further cited the Supreme Court's decision in *State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal*, emphasizing the community's interest in bringing economic offenders to justice. It also referenced the Gujarat High Court's stance in *Haji Abdulla Haji Ibrahim Mandhra v. Superintendent of Customs* that economic offences should not be treated lightly, regardless of the accused's status. The court found that the investigation was ongoing and that releasing the petitioner could hinder further investigation, both domestically and internationally.The Supreme Court's decision in *Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan* was also cited, affirming that persons accused under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, could be detained under section 167(2) by a magistrate. The court concluded that there was no justification for granting bail before the expiry of the statutory period for investigation.ConclusionThe petition for bail was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the trial court should handle the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.