Women accused under Companies Act bail proviso prevails over twin conditions where investigation showed no interference risk.

The Delhi High Court held that a woman accused under the Companies Act, 2013 was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 212(6) and was granted regular bail. The Court noted that she had remained at liberty during investigation, was never arrested, and no police custody was sought. It found no material showing destruction of evidence, witness intimidation, or other interference with the investigation, and held that post-cognizance judicial custody was unsupported by any articulated necessity. The Court further held that the statutory relaxation for a woman accused prevailed over the main provision's twin conditions, and that a general fear of flight risk could be addressed by bail conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, a woman accused in proceedings alleging offences under the Companies Act, 2013, was entitled to regular bail under the proviso to section 212(6) of that Act.

Analysis: The complaint and summoning order showed that the petitioner had remained at liberty throughout investigation and was never arrested, nor was police custody sought. There was no material suggesting destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, or other interference with investigation. The Court held that the post-cognizance remand to judicial custody was not supported by any articulated necessity, especially when the evidence was already collected and filed. It further held that the proviso to section 212(6) specifically carves out an exception for a woman accused, and the strict twin conditions in the main provision do not override that statutory relaxation. The apprehension of flight risk was found to be general and unsupported by specifics, and conditions of bail were considered sufficient to address any such concern.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 and was granted regular bail, subject to conditions.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail on terms fixed by the Court.

---