TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts submit that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to him, no offence, as alleged in the FIR, is made out. The allegation that the signature of some of the shareholders is forged is incorrect. According to him, at best, the alleged act would fall under Section 171 and/or 181 of the IPC and, therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 171 and 181 of the IPC are covered within the sweep of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., according to which, the complaint in writing can only be given by the officer of the court. He, therefore, submitted that as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C., the FIR is not maintainable and instead, complaint in writing could only be given to the concerned Magistrate. He further stated that out of 151 shareholders who had signed the original Power of Attorney-cum-consent letter dated 18.09.2021, more than 130 shareholders have already sent their written communications to the Investigating Officer in reply to the questions put forth, accepting their signatures on the said Power of Attorney. As per the mandate of Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013, to file an appropriate application before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer, and they were thoroughly interrogated. The learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that the applicants are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2009 3 SCC 751, Safiya Khan Alias Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2022 4 SCC 549, Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 585, Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam and Ors. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5485/2021, Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari v. State of Maharashtra 1980 4 SCC 551, Govind Prasad Kejriwal v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2020 16 SCC 714, Sardar Ali Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2020 12 SCC 51, Vikas v. State of Rajasthan 2014 3 SCC 321, M.Suresh & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 2018 15 SCC 273, Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Devender Anand 2019 SCC OnLine SC 996, Babu Venkatesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 2022 5 SCC 639, Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai 2022 SCC OnLine SC 258, Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 344, Randheer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer and are giving vague answers. He specifically pointed out that on 22.06.2022, accused No. 2/Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari gave a statement that the accused are in possession of Original Power of Attorney and would produce the same before the Investigation Officer as and when the same is required. However, on 16.08.2022, when he appeared before the Investigation Officer, he stated that the Original Affidavit and Power of Attorney were stolen from his office and, therefore, it can be seen that the accused are not cooperating with the investigation. Under the aforesaid circumstances, he, therefore, prayed that the applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph No.112 in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), has laid down some of the factors to be considered in the matter of anticipatory bail. The same is reproduced as under:- "112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. In paragraph No.114, it has been explained that there are some factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. Those factors are not exhaustive, but they are only illustrative in nature. The position of law, as explained in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), has further been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent pronouncement in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra). 9. If the facts of the present case are seen, the same would demonstrate that the applicant Mukesh Bhanwarilal Bhandari is the founder Director of Electrotherm India Ltd., which is a company established in the year 1994 under the Companies Act. The brother of the applicant-Shailesh Bhanwarlal Bhandari, is the complainant in the present case. The said company is registered with the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange and has 6,500 shareholders. The applicant was the Chairman of the company from its date of incorporation till the year 2020. The applicant was removed in the year 2020. In the year 2007, certain bifurcation of work in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had taken up the petitions for final hearing and vide order dated 14.02.2022, stayed the investigation arising out of M. Case No.2 & 3 of 2019, as stated above. The applicant Mukesh Bhanwarlal Bhandari in Bail Application No. 2394/2022, assailed the aforesaid order dated 14.02.2022 again before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued the notices on 25.04.2022 and directed the Investigating Officer to file a report as to the investigation carried out therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court finally vide order dated 02.08.2022, allowed the petition. 10. It is seen that besides the aforesaid criminal proceedings in the year 2017, the accused No.2 in the present FIR Mukesh Bhanwarlal Bhandari, filed Company Petition No.93/2018 & 94/2017 before NCLT Ahmedabad, challenging various illegal appointments of independent Directors to the Board of the company, which is pending for its adjudication. On 08.04.2021, accused No.2/Mukesh Bhandari filed an application under Section 241 & 242 of the Companies Act before NCLT, Ahmedabad, seeking various prayers against the concerned Managing Director, including his removal etc. The said applicant had filed an IA No. 499/2019 in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing prayer to restrain the defendants therein from entering into the company's premises. An application under Order 31 Rules 1 & 2 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected on 15.11.2021. Another Company Appeal (AT) No. 54, 55, 56 & 57/2021 are also pending at the instance of the complainant before the NCLAT. 12. The learned APP contented that non-production of Original Power of Attorney is a serious issue. According to him, once it was accepted by the applicants in their statements that they are in possession of the Original Power of Attorney at a later stage, they cannot take a different stand to say that the same has been stolen. On the other hand, the applicants have stated that there is no reason to hide the Original Power of Attorney from the Investigating Officer, and if at all, there has been any intention not to produce the same in the first statement itself, it could have been informed that the same was stolen from them. The applicants, therefore, stated that they have already lodged a complaint with respect to stealing of the Original Power of Attorney dated 19.09.2021 and inquiry with respect to the aforesaid fact is going on. According to them, the photocopy of the said Power of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....FIR relate to forgery of signatures of 77 persons in the Power of Attorney. With respect to the same allegations, two separate applications have been filed by the complainant before the NCLT and NCLAT, as stated in the preceding paragraphs. The complainant apparently approached Police Station at Gujarat, where the enquiry was conducted. The complainant thereafter made a representation. It was noted by the said police station that nothing is required to be done with respect to his application. The entire allegation relates to the documentary proof. The applicant No. 1 is aged about 70 years and the applicant No. 2 is his son. The applicant No. 1 is the brother of the complainant and the applicant No. 2 is his nephew. 15. Having considered the nature of the allegations and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as noted above, this Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to both the applicants. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Inv....