Special bail conditions under company law were not triggered where the accused was never arrested and appeared only on summons.

Where an accused had never been arrested during investigation and appeared only in response to summons, the special twin conditions for bail under section 212(6) of the Companies Act were held not to be automatically triggered. The court treated prior custody as legally unsustainable on the facts, since no police or judicial custody had been sought and the earlier remand lacked articulated reasons. Bail was then assessed on ordinary principles, and cooperation during investigation, absence of flight risk or tampering risk, documentary allegations, and likely trial delay justified regular bail.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the twin conditions under section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 were attracted when the accused had never been arrested during investigation and appeared before the court in response to summons; (ii) whether regular bail should be granted on the ordinary bail parameters, including absence of flight risk, possibility of tampering with evidence, and the likelihood of prolonged trial.

Issue (i): Whether the twin conditions under section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 were attracted when the accused had never been arrested during investigation and appeared before the court in response to summons.

Analysis: The bail regime under the special statute was examined in light of the distinction between arrest, custody, and incarceration. The investigation had proceeded for years without arrest, and even after cognizance the accused was summoned, not arrested. No request for police custody or judicial custody had been made by the investigating agency at that stage. On that factual footing, the court held that appearance in court pursuant to summons did not amount to prior incarceration for activating the special statutory twin conditions. The earlier remand to custody, made without articulated reasons or a custody request from the investigating agency, was treated as legally unsustainable for triggering section 212(6).

Conclusion: The twin conditions under section 212(6) were held not to apply on the facts.

Issue (ii): Whether regular bail should be granted on the ordinary bail parameters, including absence of flight risk, possibility of tampering with evidence, and the likelihood of prolonged trial.

Analysis: The material showed that the accused had cooperated throughout investigation, had not been arrested during the lengthy pre-cognizance period, and no concrete material was placed to suggest flight risk, witness intimidation, or tampering with evidence. The allegations were largely documentary, the trial was likely to take considerable time, and constitutional concerns of personal liberty and expeditious trial weighed against continued pre-trial incarceration. The court also noted that seriousness of allegations alone was insufficient to deny bail.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the accused was enlarged on bail, and the decision affirmed that special bail restrictions cannot be mechanically applied without a legally sustainable basis for custody or incarceration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused has never been arrested during investigation and appears before the court only in response to summons, the special bail conditions tied to prior incarceration are not automatically triggered, and bail must then be assessed on ordinary principles of liberty, risk, and trial fairness.

---