https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297670 Anticipatory bail was refused where allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy arose from investment schemes floated through companies controlled by the petitioner. The Court treated the petitioner as the controlling figure, noted his earlier responsibility for repayment before the Company Court, and relied on the fact that complete particulars of the companies, schemes, assets, receivables and bank accounts had not been disclosed despite repeated directions. It also noted that the sanctioned scheme for debenture holders had not been implemented within the stated timetable. In these circumstances, the Court accepted that custody was necessary for effective investigation and recovery, and declined anticipatory bail. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:20:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297670 Anticipatory bail was refused where allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy arose from investment schemes floated through companies controlled by the petitioner. The Court treated the petitioner as the controlling figure, noted his earlier responsibility for repayment before the Company Court, and relied on the fact that complete particulars of the companies, schemes, assets, receivables and bank accounts had not been disclosed despite repeated directions. It also noted that the sanctioned scheme for debenture holders had not been implemented within the stated timetable. In these circumstances, the Court accepted that custody was necessary for effective investigation and recovery, and declined anticipatory bail. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297670