Regular bail in corporate fraud case upheld where statutory bail conditions were prima facie satisfied and role was distinguishable.

Regular bail was granted in a prosecution under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 after the Delhi HC distinguished the applicant's role from that of the main accused. The Court noted that the chartered accountant had not signed the relevant financial statements, had not derived financial benefit, had cooperated with the inquiry, and had remained subject to proceedings for a substantial period. It further held that the embargo under Section 212(6) did not bar bail because the Public Prosecutor had an opportunity to oppose the application and the Court was prima facie satisfied that the applicant was not guilty and was unlikely to reoffend. Bail was therefore allowed on conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in an offence case under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. (ii) Whether the statutory restrictions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 barred grant of bail.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in an economic offence case under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The applicant was a chartered accountant and the material placed before the Court indicated that he had not signed the relevant financial statements, had not derived financial benefit from the alleged transactions, had cooperated with the inquiry, and had already faced proceedings for a substantial period without earlier arrest. The Court also noted the bail granted to similarly placed co-accused and treated the applicant's role as distinguishable from the main accused.

Conclusion: Bail was granted in favour of the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory restrictions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 barred grant of bail.

Analysis: The Court held that the Public Prosecutor had been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, satisfying the first statutory requirement. On a prima facie assessment, the Court was also satisfied that the applicant was not guilty of the alleged offence and was not likely to commit any further offence while on bail, thereby meeting the second requirement. The Court further observed that the bail provisions had to be considered along with the constitutional value of personal liberty and the need for an expeditious trial.

Conclusion: The statutory embargo did not prevent grant of bail.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was released on regular bail subject to conditions, and the bail application stood disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory opportunity to oppose bail is given and the Court is prima facie satisfied that the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend, bail may be granted despite the stringent conditions governing economic offences.

---