Prolonged custody and delayed trial can justify bail despite statutory restriction in a Companies Act prosecution.

Bail in a Companies Act, 2013 prosecution was granted where the accused had remained in custody for more than two years, service of summons on foreign accused had not been effectively completed, and trial was not likely to begin soon. The Court treated the statutory bail restriction as needing to be assessed in the facts of the case and alongside the constitutional right to an expeditious trial under Article 21, while recognising the bail power under Section 439 CrPC. Bail was accordingly allowed, subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the Sessions Judge.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Companies Act, 2013 despite the statutory restriction, having regard to prolonged custody, non-service of summons on foreign accused, and the absence of an immediate prospect of trial.

Analysis: The appellant had remained in custody for more than two years, while successive summons to foreign accused had not been effectively served and there was no immediate likelihood of the trial commencing. In these circumstances, the Court held that the statutory conditions for bail had to be assessed in light of the facts of the case, the protection of the right to an expeditious trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the appellant, subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the Sessions Judge.

---