https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766308 Bail was refused in a prosecution for serious economic offences involving alleged fraudulent diversion of funds through puppet companies and active managerial participation. The Court held that completion of investigation did not by itself justify release because the petitioner's presence was still required at the stage of framing charges. It also found that the statutory twin conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 were not satisfied, and accepted the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. Long incarceration and claimed parity with a co-accused were insufficient on the facts to displace these concerns, so enlargement on bail was declined. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Feb 2025 08:30:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766308 Bail was refused in a prosecution for serious economic offences involving alleged fraudulent diversion of funds through puppet companies and active managerial participation. The Court held that completion of investigation did not by itself justify release because the petitioner's presence was still required at the stage of framing charges. It also found that the statutory twin conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 were not satisfied, and accepted the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. Long incarceration and claimed parity with a co-accused were insufficient on the facts to displace these concerns, so enlargement on bail was declined. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766308