https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407724 Complaint filed within the prescribed period did not create an indefeasible right to default bail merely because cognizance was taken later, and continued judicial custody was treated as lawful under the governing procedure; default bail was therefore refused. The Court also held that regular bail was unavailable because the allegations disclosed a serious economic offence involving alleged fraud and public interest concerns, and the statutory bail restriction under the Companies Act, 2013 was not satisfied on the facts. Earlier bail granted in another proceeding did not govern the present request, and release was denied on both grounds. en-us Tue, 11 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 May 2021 08:39:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407724 Complaint filed within the prescribed period did not create an indefeasible right to default bail merely because cognizance was taken later, and continued judicial custody was treated as lawful under the governing procedure; default bail was therefore refused. The Court also held that regular bail was unavailable because the allegations disclosed a serious economic offence involving alleged fraud and public interest concerns, and the statutory bail restriction under the Companies Act, 2013 was not satisfied on the facts. Earlier bail granted in another proceeding did not govern the present request, and release was denied on both grounds. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 11 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407724