Bail granted in Companies Act case with fraud charges after medical examination and trial delay concerns

The Bombay HC granted bail to an accused in a Companies Act case involving multiple IPC violations including fraud and forgery. The court relied on SC precedent in Jainam Rathod v. State of Haryana, which emphasized protecting personal liberty when trial completion is unlikely within reasonable time. The applicant underwent medical examination by a panel at J.J. Hospital comprising specialists including oncologist and surgeon. After considering the applicant's medical condition, case history, and SC jurisprudence on bail in economic offenses, the HC confirmed the interim bail previously granted. The bail application was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Confirmation of bail on medical grounds.
2. Applicability of Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Precedents and legal principles for granting bail on medical grounds.

Summary:

Issue 1: Confirmation of Bail on Medical Grounds

The applicant, a 71-year-old man suffering from severe ailments including advanced-stage colon and stomach cancer, sought the confirmation of temporary bail granted on medical grounds. The applicant had been granted temporary bail by this Court on 30th September 2022, due to his serious health condition. The applicant's medical reports from Nanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital indicated a need for prolonged specialized care, which was not feasible in custody. The latest medical report dated 26th February 2024 confirmed the deteriorating health of the applicant, necessitating continuous specialized treatment and nursing care.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013

The applicant was arraigned as one of the accused in Company Petition No.20 of 2019 by the Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (SFIO) for offences punishable u/s 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Sections 417, 420 r/w 120-B of the IPC. The applicant's counsel argued that the twin conditions for bail under Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013, were not applicable as the applicant was "sick or infirm," which is an exception provided in the proviso to Section 212(6). The Court acknowledged that the applicant's medical condition fell within the exception, allowing the Court to grant bail.

Issue 3: Precedents and Legal Principles for Granting Bail on Medical Grounds

The applicant's counsel cited several precedents where bail was granted on medical grounds, including cases like Lalit Goyal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and another, Dr. P V Varavara Rao Vs. National Investigation Agency, and Father Stan Swamy Vs. State of Maharashtra. The Court noted these precedents, emphasizing the need to protect personal liberty in light of serious health conditions and the inadequacy of prison facilities to provide necessary medical care. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Jainam Rathod Vs. State of Haryana, which highlighted the importance of expeditious trials and the protection of personal liberty when trial delays are evident.

Order:

The Court confirmed the interim bail granted to the applicant on medical grounds, allowing the applicant to be enlarged on bail upon executing a P.R bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with sureties. Conditions were imposed, including attending the Special Court, not leaving the jurisdiction, surrendering the passport, and not tampering with evidence. The application was disposed of in these terms, and any pending interim applications were also disposed of.

---