TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Code, 1860. 2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner is 65 years old. The complaint is pending in the court of Ms. Neelam Singh, Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act). As stated above, the offences alleged in the said complaint against the petitioner are under Section 128, 129, 447, 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, Section 209, 211 read with 628 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Section 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. It is further submitted that petitioner is suffering from following serious ailments:- a. Chronic Diabetes, b. Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC-Kidney Tumor) - 2010 c. Incision Hernia since 2010 d. Post Right Radical Nephrectomy with Hillar Lymph Node, Lung Cancer with En-larged Hypervascular Nodes in the right paratracheal region, e. High blood Pressure due to which the Applicant is prone to Nasal bleeding. In March 2017 the applicant suffered to Nasal Bleeding due to which he admitted to Dr. Gyan Bhushan Nursing Home, Karnal, Haryana. f. The Applicant has recently suffered a Heart Attack on 17.05.2019, wherein he has operated in Emergency for inducting stent to LAD for 2 (two) days with Sir Ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner about the issuance of NBWs against him. 6. The petitioner had thereafter engaged a counsel who downloaded the order from the concerned internet portal of the District Court which confirmed the issuance of NBWs against him. Ld. Sr. counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not arrested during investigation and there is no legal justification for issuance of NBWs against him. The petitioner has apprehension that he will be sent to custody upon appearance before the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act). It is, therefore, submitted that NBWs issued vide order dated 14.10.2019 against the petitioner is unjustified and without any basis. The summons were never served upon the petitioner. Only a submission has been made by SFIO that the petitioner was aware about the development of the case and deliberately avoiding his appearance before the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act) on 14.10.2019. The same is without any basis and no material was placed before the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act). Even if Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act) was of the opinion that petitioner was deliberately evading his appearance, the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act) ought to have is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Haryana High Court (DB) on 01.10.2015 @ Pata 5; (iii) Arun Sharma vs. Union of India, CRWP No. 971 of 2016, decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court (DB) on 22.07.2016. 8. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be granted anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in the complaint case in question pending before the court of Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act). 9. The anticipatory bail application is opposed by Ms. Maninder Acharya, Ld. ASG for the State on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature. A fraud has been committed to the tune of Rs. 45,818 Crores approximately. A complaint has been filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 128, 129, 447, 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, Section 209, 211 read with 628 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Section 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. Ld. ASG has further argued that High Court had granted bail to one co-accused Nitin Johri. However, the said bail order has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ld. ASG has further argued that petitioner is supposed to approach the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act) for cancellation of NBWs as well as for g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said whether petitioner was properly served or not. This submission is, therefore, made without seeing the record. In case, the petitioner is correct to the extent that he was not duly served, the Ld. ASJ/ Special Judge after considering the submission of Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ld. counsel for SFIO and perusal of report on summon can pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Ld. ASJ/ Special Judge and make all his submissions made herein, before the Ld. Trial court as well. However, no doubt there is a reasonable apprehension that before the petitioner is able to approach the Ld. Special Court, he may be arrested by prosecuting agency in pursuance of NBWs issued against him. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner need to be protected to that extent and it is, therefore, ordered that till next date of hearing i.e. 11.11.2019, the NBWs issued by Ld. ASJ/Special Judge be kept in abeyance. 13. Now coming to the question of grant of anticipatory bail, keeping in mind the serious nature of the offence where there are grave allegations of fraud involving huge amount of money running i....