https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431865 The Delhi High Court held that a woman accused under the Companies Act, 2013 was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 212(6) and was granted regular bail. The Court noted that she had remained at liberty during investigation, was never arrested, and no police custody was sought. It found no material showing destruction of evidence, witness intimidation, or other interference with the investigation, and held that post-cognizance judicial custody was unsupported by any articulated necessity. The Court further held that the statutory relaxation for a woman accused prevailed over the main provision's twin conditions, and that a general fear of flight risk could be addressed by bail conditions. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Dec 2022 16:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431865 The Delhi High Court held that a woman accused under the Companies Act, 2013 was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 212(6) and was granted regular bail. The Court noted that she had remained at liberty during investigation, was never arrested, and no police custody was sought. It found no material showing destruction of evidence, witness intimidation, or other interference with the investigation, and held that post-cognizance judicial custody was unsupported by any articulated necessity. The Court further held that the statutory relaxation for a woman accused prevailed over the main provision's twin conditions, and that a general fear of flight risk could be addressed by bail conditions. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431865