TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bank officers granted bail in economic offenses case under Companies Act & IPC.</h1> <h3>Ashok Kumar Makhija, Mithilesh Kumar Jha, Ravinder Kumar Nagpal Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office</h3> The court granted bail to accused A-195, A-193, and A-194, retired bank officers, in a case involving offenses under Sections 447 of the Companies Act and ... Seeking grant of Bail - acts of misappropriation of huge sums of money - Section 212(6) of Companies Act - HELD THAT:- Since the applicants have already retired and similarly situated persons have already been granted bail, especially, the main accused Nitin Johri and Neeraj Singhal, therefore, the applicants also need to be enlarged on bail. As regards the legal embargo of Section 212(6), Sub-section-(i) has duly been complied with, as the Public Prosecutor (Ld. CGSC) has been given a chance to oppose the bail applications. The Applicants are not guilty of the offence of which they are charged with, and therefore, it is opined, that they are not likely to commit any further offence while on bail. The Applicants are enlarged on bail on the following terms and conditions - Each applicant shall furnish a personal bond with two local sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - Application disposed off. Issues:Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C for accused A-195, A-193, and A-194 for offenses under Sections 447 of the Companies Act and Section 409 IPC in Complaint Case No. 770/2019.Analysis:1. The accused, all retired officers of a bank, sought bail for alleged neglect of duties related to misappropriation by Bhushan Steel Ltd. and Bhushan Energy Ltd. The summoning order highlighted their failure to adhere to banking guidelines, causing losses. However, they argued that they were not directly involved in the fraud and were part of a team handling LCs, emphasizing lack of specific allegations against them.2. The accused had been cooperating with the trial court for three years without arrest. They cited the bail granted to similarly situated individuals, including co-accused and bank officials, to support their plea for bail. The defense contended that since the main accused and others had been granted bail, the retirees should also be released on bail.3. The judgment considered the legal aspect of Section 212(6) compliance, ensuring the Public Prosecutor had the opportunity to oppose bail. Despite observations on delays in trials for economic offenses, the court found the accused not likely to commit further offenses and granted bail with conditions. The terms included a personal bond and appearance before the court when directed, emphasizing the need to inform authorities of any address changes.4. The court referred to previous cases where bail was granted to individuals involved in the same matter, highlighting the distinction between the roles of different accused and the importance of expeditious trials. The judgment balanced the need for bail with the stringent view on economic offenses, ultimately deciding in favor of granting bail to the retired bank officers based on the presented arguments and legal considerations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
