https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437337 In bail proceedings involving allegations under section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, the statutory restriction in section 212(6) did not require automatic refusal of bail; the Court held that the prosecution had to place foundational, accused-specific material and the opposition to bail had to be reasoned. Applying section 439 CrPC with section 212(6), the Court noted that the accused was not a director or committee member, joined the company after much of the alleged siphoning had already occurred, and was not shown to control the procurement-side transactions or the core fraudulent design. On that factual basis, regular bail was granted subject to conditions. en-us Wed, 03 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 May 2023 09:17:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437337 In bail proceedings involving allegations under section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, the statutory restriction in section 212(6) did not require automatic refusal of bail; the Court held that the prosecution had to place foundational, accused-specific material and the opposition to bail had to be reasoned. Applying section 439 CrPC with section 212(6), the Court noted that the accused was not a director or committee member, joined the company after much of the alleged siphoning had already occurred, and was not shown to control the procurement-side transactions or the core fraudulent design. On that factual basis, regular bail was granted subject to conditions. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 03 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437337