https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437004 Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with section 212(7), generally imposes twin conditions for bail in serious company-law offences, but that restriction was not treated as an automatic bar where the accused had not been arrested during investigation and was taken into custody only after appearance on summons. Applying the principle in Satender Kumar Antil, the court noted that if arrest was not considered necessary during investigation, custody need not follow mechanically on summons. Bail was granted on the facts, supported by completed investigation, no allegation of non-cooperation, witness intimidation or tampering, and bail already granted to a co-accused. en-us Fri, 17 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437004 Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with section 212(7), generally imposes twin conditions for bail in serious company-law offences, but that restriction was not treated as an automatic bar where the accused had not been arrested during investigation and was taken into custody only after appearance on summons. Applying the principle in Satender Kumar Antil, the court noted that if arrest was not considered necessary during investigation, custody need not follow mechanically on summons. Bail was granted on the facts, supported by completed investigation, no allegation of non-cooperation, witness intimidation or tampering, and bail already granted to a co-accused. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437004