Regular bail and remand limits under the Companies Act: custody on first appearance needs recorded reasons and concrete risk material.

Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as inapplicable to remand to judicial custody at first appearance where the accused had not been arrested during investigation. The Delhi HC noted that the petitioner had remained at liberty throughout the investigation, was taken into custody only after appearing on summons, and the remand order lacked recorded reasons showing custody was necessary. In the absence of allegations of witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or interference with investigation, and with no specific material showing flight risk, the court held that any apprehension could be addressed by conditions. Regular bail was therefore granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The petitioner had not been arrested during the long course of investigation and was remanded to judicial custody only after appearance before the trial court upon summons. The remand order did not disclose any reasoned basis for treating custody as necessary, nor was there any allegation of intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence, or interference with investigation. The bail restriction under section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 was held to be inapplicable to the stage where the accused was not already in custody and the question was whether judicial custody should be ordered on appearance. The court also found no specific material showing that the petitioner was a flight risk, and held that any theoretical apprehension could be met by conditions.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to regular bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 does not govern remand to judicial custody on first appearance where the accused was never arrested during investigation and custody is not justified by recorded reasons.

---