https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425028 Section 212(6) of the Companies Act did not bar bail where the Public Prosecutor was heard and the Court was prima facie satisfied that the accused were not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence on bail. The Delhi High Court noted that the applicants, retired bank officials, were alleged only to have been negligent in relation to discounting documents under letters of credit, with no specific allegation of personal siphoning or fraud. It also relied on parity, as the main accused and other co-accused had already obtained bail, and on the absence of arrest for years despite summons, to conclude that release on conditions was warranted. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jul 2022 08:53:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425028 Section 212(6) of the Companies Act did not bar bail where the Public Prosecutor was heard and the Court was prima facie satisfied that the accused were not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence on bail. The Delhi High Court noted that the applicants, retired bank officials, were alleged only to have been negligent in relation to discounting documents under letters of credit, with no specific allegation of personal siphoning or fraud. It also relied on parity, as the main accused and other co-accused had already obtained bail, and on the absence of arrest for years despite summons, to conclude that release on conditions was warranted. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 11 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425028