Woman accused in SFIO probe granted regular bail; section 212(6) exemption does not override ordinary bail considerations.

A woman accused in an SFIO investigation under the Companies Act, 2013 sought regular bail despite the stringent bar in section 212(6) for offences under section 447. The Court noted that the proviso exempts women from that restriction, but the exemption does not create an automatic entitlement to release and ordinary bail principles still apply. Because the complaint had been filed, the applicant had joined investigation, custody was not shown to be necessary, and there was no material of tampering, witness influence, or flight risk beyond conditions, regular bail was granted subject to terms.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant, a woman accused in an SFIO investigation under the Companies Act, 2013, was entitled to regular bail despite the restrictions under section 212(6) and the allegations of a grave economic offence.

Analysis: The complaint had already been filed after completion of investigation, and the applicant had joined the investigation on several occasions. The custody of the applicant was not shown to be necessary for further investigation. The Court noted that section 212(6) imposes a stringent bar on bail for offences under section 447, but its proviso exempts a woman from that restriction. Even so, the Court held that the exemption does not mean automatic release and that the ordinary bail considerations still apply. On the facts, the Court found no material showing tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or flight risk that could not be addressed by conditions. It also noted that most co-accused were not arrested and that the evidence appeared to be largely documentary.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to regular bail, subject to conditions.

---