Court grants bail to applicant in Companies Act & IPC case due to doubt in record preparation.

The court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving alleged offenses under various sections of the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code. The court found the applicant's role in preparing statutory records to be doubtful and noted the absence of signed documents submitted by the applicant. Considering the principle of parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, the court concluded that the applicant should be released on bail with specified conditions to ensure his presence and compliance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail to the applicant.
2. Alleged commission of offenses under Sections 477A read with Section 120B IPC, Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Application of Section 447 read with Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.
4. Preparation of statutory records for past years.
5. Parity in bail applications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Bail to the Applicant:
The applicant sought bail in CC No.720/2017 pending before the Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka District Courts, Delhi. The applicant argued that he was in judicial custody since 24.5.2019 and that his first bail application was erroneously rejected. The applicant contended that he was charged under Sections 477A read with Section 120B IPC, Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, but not under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. The applicant emphasized that the rigors of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, which applies to offenses involving fraud under Section 447, should not apply to him as he was not charged under that section.

2. Alleged Commission of Offenses:
The applicant was accused of preparing statutory records for several companies for the period FY 2008-09 to 2014-15 during February-March 2016. The SFIO alleged that the applicant, as part of a larger conspiracy, prepared these records without original documents, using information from the MCA website. The SFIO claimed that the records were backdated and prepared to complete legal formalities, not during the actual functioning of the companies. The SFIO further alleged that these records were unsigned and unfiled draft documents found in the possession of another accused, Jitender Kumar Sharma.

3. Application of Section 447 read with Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013:
The SFIO contended that the offenses under Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, which involve making false statements, fall under the ambit of Section 447, which deals with fraud. Therefore, the SFIO argued that the bail conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, should apply. This section requires that the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose bail and that the court be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offense while on bail.

4. Preparation of Statutory Records for Past Years:
The applicant argued that preparing statutory records for past events is not an offense and is necessary for the compounding of offenses under Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013. The applicant contended that the records were prepared based on information from the MCA website and not original documents. The SFIO's investigation revealed that the records were prepared after the events occurred and were not signed or filed with any statutory authorities, making the applicability of Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, doubtful.

5. Parity in Bail Applications:
The applicant sought bail on the principle of parity, noting that other co-accused, including Vijay Kumar Sharma (Accused No. 86) and Shriti Kumari (Accused No. 89), had been granted bail. The applicant also highlighted that Jitender Kumar Sharma (Accused No. 79), from whose possession the unsigned documents were recovered, received interim protection from the Allahabad High Court.

Judgment:
The court considered the submissions from both sides. It noted that the applicant's role began in February-March 2016, and the records prepared were not signed or submitted to any authority. The court found the applicability of Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, doubtful in the absence of any signed document submitted by the applicant. The court also considered the principle of parity, noting that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail.

The court concluded that the applicant should be granted bail, emphasizing that the charges were yet to be framed and that the applicant's presence could be secured without risk of him fleeing or tampering with evidence. The applicant was granted bail on filing a bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, with conditions not to leave the country, not to tamper with evidence, to provide contact details to the SFIO, and not to commit any offense.

The Bail Application 2154/2019 and CRL.M. (BAIL) 1511/2019 were disposed of accordingly.

---