Bail under Companies Act restrictions granted where allegations showed negligence, not specific personal fraud, and parity favoured release.

Section 212(6) of the Companies Act did not bar bail where the Public Prosecutor was heard and the Court was prima facie satisfied that the accused were not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence on bail. The Delhi High Court noted that the applicants, retired bank officials, were alleged only to have been negligent in relation to discounting documents under letters of credit, with no specific allegation of personal siphoning or fraud. It also relied on parity, as the main accused and other co-accused had already obtained bail, and on the absence of arrest for years despite summons, to conclude that release on conditions was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused persons, arrested in connection with offences under the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code, were entitled to bail notwithstanding the restrictions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The applicants were retired bank against whom the allegation was of negligence in discharge of duties in relation to discounting of documents under letters of credit. The Court noted that they had remained on summons for years without arrest, that the complaint did not attribute a specific act of siphoning or personal fraud to them, and that similarly placed accused persons, including the main accused and other co-accused, had already been granted bail. The Court further held that the procedural safeguard in Section 212(6)(i) was satisfied as the Public Prosecutor had been heard, and was prima facie satisfied that the applicants were not guilty and were not likely to commit any offence while on bail, thereby meeting Section 212(6)(ii) as well.

Conclusion: The statutory embargo did not preclude release, and bail was granted to the applicants.

Final Conclusion: The applications for bail were allowed and the accused persons were directed to be released on specified conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory bail restriction is satisfied and the accused's role is distinguishable from that of the main offenders, parity, absence of specific allegations of personal fraud, and the right to an expeditious trial may justify grant of bail.

---