Statutory bail under the Companies Act requires accused-specific material, and regular bail was granted on the facts.

In bail proceedings involving allegations under section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, the statutory restriction in section 212(6) did not require automatic refusal of bail; the Court held that the prosecution had to place foundational, accused-specific material and the opposition to bail had to be reasoned. Applying section 439 CrPC with section 212(6), the Court noted that the accused was not a director or committee member, joined the company after much of the alleged siphoning had already occurred, and was not shown to control the procurement-side transactions or the core fraudulent design. On that factual basis, regular bail was granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, facing allegations attracting section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, was entitled to regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The offences under section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 attracted the statutory bail restriction in section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, which required the Court to be satisfied, in addition to the ordinary bail considerations under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court held that these conditions do not mandate automatic refusal of bail. The prosecution must first place foundational facts and material specific to the accused, and the opposition to bail must be reasoned rather than a mere recital of allegations. On the facts, the petitioner joined ESL after a substantial part of the alleged siphoning had already taken place, was not a director or committee member, was not shown to control the procurement side of the transactions, and the material relied upon did not sufficiently connect him to the core fraudulent design for the purpose of bail.

Conclusion: The Court found the petitioner entitled to bail and admitted him to regular bail subject to conditions.

---