https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308858 Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as inapplicable to remand to judicial custody at first appearance where the accused had not been arrested during investigation. The Delhi HC noted that the petitioner had remained at liberty throughout the investigation, was taken into custody only after appearing on summons, and the remand order lacked recorded reasons showing custody was necessary. In the absence of allegations of witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or interference with investigation, and with no specific material showing flight risk, the court held that any apprehension could be addressed by conditions. Regular bail was therefore granted. en-us Mon, 06 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jul 2023 09:23:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308858 Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as inapplicable to remand to judicial custody at first appearance where the accused had not been arrested during investigation. The Delhi HC noted that the petitioner had remained at liberty throughout the investigation, was taken into custody only after appearing on summons, and the remand order lacked recorded reasons showing custody was necessary. In the absence of allegations of witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or interference with investigation, and with no specific material showing flight risk, the court held that any apprehension could be addressed by conditions. Regular bail was therefore granted. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 06 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308858