Bail despite statutory restrictions where prolonged custody, documentary evidence, and serious illness made detention disproportionate

Prolonged pre-trial custody in a serious fraud prosecution under the Companies Act and IPC did not justify continued detention where the trial had stalled, the case was largely documentary, investigation was complete, and further custody was unnecessary for recovery or inquiry. The applicant's significant cardiac illness and co-morbidities reinforced that Article 21 liberty and speedy-trial protections remained available despite the statutory bail restriction under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, which was not treated as an absolute bar when detention had become disproportionate. Bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 despite the statutory restrictions on bail, having regard to prolonged incarceration and serious medical condition.

Analysis: The application arose from a serious fraud prosecution in which the applicant had remained in custody for nearly five years while the trial had not progressed to completion. The material on record showed that the case rested largely on documentary evidence, the investigation was complete, and the applicant's continued custody was not required for recovery or further investigation. The applicant also produced medical material showing significant cardiac ailments and other co-morbidities, including risk factors requiring close treatment and monitoring. In such circumstances, the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 was held to remain available notwithstanding the statutory bail restrictions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, which could not be treated as an absolute bar where continued detention would be disproportionate.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail.

---