Prolonged custody can justify bail despite strict Companies Act conditions where trial delay and a limited role are shown.

Despite the stringent bail restriction in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, prolonged pre-trial custody and a slow-moving prosecution can justify bail to protect personal liberty where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The Court also treated the appellant's role as distinct from that of the main accused and noted the large number of accused and continuing delay in proceedings. On those facts, continued detention was not warranted, and release on bail on terms fixed by the Special Judge was ordered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail should be granted in a prosecution for offences under the Companies Act and the Penal Code despite the restrictions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013; (ii) whether the absence of an early prospect of conclusion of trial and the appellant's role justified grant of bail.

Issue (i): Whether bail should be granted in a prosecution for offences under the Companies Act and the Penal Code despite the restrictions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The complaint involved a large number of accused and the proceedings had progressed slowly. The appellant had remained in custody since 28 August 2019. The Court balanced the statutory limitations on bail against the constitutional requirement that personal liberty not be curtailed indefinitely where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.

Conclusion: Bail was held to be justified notwithstanding the rigour of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of an early prospect of conclusion of trial and the appellant's role justified grant of bail.

Analysis: The Court noted that 187 accused were named, most had appeared, and proclamation proceedings were being initiated against the remaining persons, indicating further delay. The appellant's role was distinguished from that of the main accused, and the prolonged incarceration weighed in favour of release pending trial.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to bail because continued detention was not warranted in view of the delay and the differentiated role attributed to him.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant was directed to be released on bail on terms fixed by the Special Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: Even in offences governed by stringent bail conditions, prolonged custody and an inordinate likelihood of delay in trial can justify bail to protect personal liberty, especially where the accused's role is distinct from that of the principal offenders.

---