Bail for cooperative stock auditor: limited role and parity with co-accused justified release despite serious allegations.

A stock auditor seeking bail in a second application was granted relief because his role was limited to auditing on the basis of company-supplied records, he had cooperated with the investigation and remained available before the investigating agency and the trial court, and his custody had not been sought during the investigation or after the complaint. The allegations were framed mainly as negligence in not detecting stock discrepancies, while the principal accused had already obtained interim bail. On these facts, the Court held that continued incarceration was not warranted and admitted him to bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds, without finding the restrictions in section 212(6) decisive against release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a second bail application, having regard to his cooperation with the investigation, the nature of his role as stock auditor, the parity claimed with co-accused, and the applicability of the restrictions under section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The petitioner's role was limited to conducting stock audit on the basis of information and documents supplied by the company. He had joined the investigation when summoned and had continued to appear before the investigating agency and the trial court. His custody had not been sought during investigation or after filing of the complaint, and the record showed that the bail matter had remained pending for a substantial period before he was taken into judicial custody. The allegations against him were primarily of negligence in not detecting or flagging inconsistencies in the stock position, while the principal accused had already been enlarged on interim bail. In these circumstances, the Court found that continued incarceration was not warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail and was admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond.

Final Conclusion: The bail application succeeded and the petitioner was released on bail subject to furnishing the prescribed bond and surety.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused has cooperated with investigation, remained available to the court, and the allegations disclose a limited participatory role, bail may be granted notwithstanding the seriousness of the prosecution, especially when the restrictive bail provision is not shown to justify continued detention on the facts.

---