2023 (2) TMI 1166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l application. The order has been shown to court. Let it be placed on record. 2. By way of the present petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short), the petitioner, who is accused in CC No.245/2021 titled SFIO vs. Parul Polymers Pvt. Ltd & Ors. pending trial before the learned Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, seeks regular bail. 3. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 4 before the learned trial court, among 12 other accused. Bail Appl. 2633/2022 Page 2 of 7 4. Notice on this petition was issued on 02.09.2022; whereupon the respondent/Serious Fraud Investigation Office ("SFIO" for short) has filed reply/counter-affidavit dated 15.11.2022 opposing grant of bail. 5. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 15.11.2022 filed by the SFIO to the present petition, the role attributed to the petitioner in the criminal complaint is the following: "8. That the applicant was a regular employee of PPPL and a close confidant of Suman Chadha (A-2). 9. That the applicant had admitted on oath that he had helped Suman Chadha (A-2) in opening of bank accounts in the name of other persons. He has further admitted on oath that he used to perform all banking activities like opening of bank accounts, opening of LCs etc. and field work for Suman Chadha (A-2). In this regard, kind attention of this Hon'ble Court is invited to Section 217(7) of the Companies Act 2013 which is as under: "The notes of any examination under sub-section (4) shall be take....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the matter. 10. Upon being queried as to the allegation that the petitioner had subscribed the names/signatures of various persons on the account opening forms, Mr. Lohia submits, that being a petty employee of the company, the petitioner had no choice in the matter. In any case, it is the submission on behalf of the petitioner, that in relation to the filling-up of the forms for opening bank accounts, there is no allegation against the petitioner of forgery or fabrication of documents in the chargesheet. 11. It is the admitted position, that even at the stage when the petitioner appeared before the learned Special Judge upon being summonsed, the Investigating Officer never sought his remand to judicial custody. 12. On the other hand, op....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his appearance, vests with the Special Judge; and that should have been considered and decided by the Special Judge in accordance with well-settled and restrictive principles as to pre-trial detention of an accused. 15. In the present case, as also in the case of Komal Chadha (supra), the order remanding the petitioner to judicial custody discloses no application of mind as to why, on what basis, for what reason, or for what purpose the learned Special Judge formed the view that the petitioner‟s judicial custody had become necessary, after the petitioner had been at liberty for the past 06 years. There was no allegation of the petitioner having either intimidated any witnesses; or having tampered with evidence; or having otherwise in....