Case Law Details
Ashish Mittal Vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office (Delhi High Court)
The crux of the offence alleged against the accused persons is therefore, that by round-tripping funds, ESL and some of the other 69 accused (including companies and individuals), have committed fraud as contemplated under section 447 of the 2013 Act, apart from other offences under the 1956 Act and the IPC.
After a detailed investigation in the matter, the SFIO has filed a prosecution complaint under section 439(2)/436/212 of the 2013 Act, which is the equivalent of a chargesheet, arraigning 70 persons as accused. Of the accused, 15 are corporate entities and 55 are various persons alleged to have been associated with ESL and other subsidiary companies in various ways.
High Court held that The twin-conditions contained in section 212(6) of Companies Act 2013 Act do not imply that as soon as section 212(6) is triggered, bail must reflexively, immediately or automatically be rejected. Section 212(6) however raises the threshold of satisfaction required of the court while considering the grant or denial of bail. In addition to the usual and ordinary conditions under section 439 Cr.P.C., the court is also required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty, and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
At the threshold therefore, it must be seen if there are any allegations against the accused under the relevant section section 447 of the 2013 Act, since otherwise section 212(6) will not come into play at all.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
