62-year-old gets bail under Section 447 Companies Act after prolonged detention without trial prospects

Bombay HC granted bail to a 62-year-old applicant charged under Section 447 of Companies Act, 2013 and Sections 417, 420 r/w 120-B IPC after prolonged incarceration without trial prospects. Court relied on SC precedent in Jainam Rathod case, noting investigation was complete, evidence was documentary, co-accused were similarly placed, and applicant had cooperated throughout. HC emphasized constitutional powers under Article 21 override statutory restrictions in Section 212(6)(ii) of Companies Act when personal liberty is at stake due to trial delays.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application by the accused.
2. Long incarceration and health issues of the accused.
3. Legal precedents and constitutional rights.

Summary:

Issue 1: Bail Application by the Accused
The applicant sought bail in connection with Criminal Complaint No. 20 of 2019, prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) for offenses under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Sections 417, 420 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was arrested on 1st April 2019, and his bail application was previously rejected by the Special Judge on 3rd October 2019.

Issue 2: Long Incarceration and Health Issues of the Accused
The applicant argued the long incarceration since his arrest on 1st April 2019 violated his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. He highlighted his severe health issues, including serious cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and other ailments, substantiated by multiple medical reports. The applicant had undergone multiple heart surgeries and required constant medical attention. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody for nearly five years and was the only accused still in custody among the 30 accused in the case.

Issue 3: Legal Precedents and Constitutional Rights
The applicant's counsel cited various legal precedents, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in cases like Jainam Rathod Vs. State of Haryana, Sujay U. Desai Vs. SFIO, and Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, which granted bail to accused persons in similar circumstances due to prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of a timely trial. The court also noted that co-accused in similar positions had been granted bail, and the applicant's continued detention would violate his constitutional rights.

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to the applicant, considering his long incarceration, severe health issues, and the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The applicant was ordered to furnish a P.R bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with sureties, surrender his passport, and comply with other conditions to ensure his presence during the trial and prevent tampering with evidence. The court dismissed the respondent's request to stay the order, allowing the applicant to furnish cash security and release on bail.

---