The Delhi High Court refused to grant bail to a person fraudulently inducing persons to invest money.
The applicant, Prabhat Kumar Shrivastava sought the grant of regular bail alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 36(c), 128, 129, 134, 188(5), 447, 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 211, 217, 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.
As per the observations in the order on summoning of the learned Special Judge, Companies Act, the Central Government under powers conferred under Section 206 (4) directed the conducting of an inquiry vide order which culminated into submission of an inquiry report under Section 208 of the Companies Act to the Central Government as a consequence of which the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India in terms of the exercise of power under Section 212(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Companies Act, 2013 assigned the investigation into the affairs of Rockland Hospitals Limited (RHL) now M/s Medeor Hospital Limited vide order and also accorded approval to carry out the investigation into the affairs of four other group companies of the complainant i.e. Rockland Hotels Limited (RHOL), Somya Constructions Private Limited (SMCL), Rockland Media and Communication Private Limited (RMCPL) and RSH Meditech Systems Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 30.09.2019 and that the Director SFIO in turn appointed officers of the SFIO as inspectors to exercise all the powers under Section 212(1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013 and to carry out investigation of the above captioned companies vide order which was modified vide order; information is also stated to have been collected from various agencies including MCA Portal, Regional Director/ROC, Banks, Government Departments, Statutory Auditors and statements of various persons were recorded.
As per the investigation conducted, the petitioner and other persons arrayed as accused, connived and siphoned of funds of RHL by way of separate/distinct transactions.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is neither a flight risk nor is there any allegation against him of tampering with any evidence and that the investigation in the matter is complete and the charge sheet has already been filed and thus, he will be granted regular bail.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anu Malhotra said that it is not considered appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. However, as observed hereinabove, the interim bail granted to the applicant vide order is extended for a further period of 60 days on the same terms and conditions as imposed vide order in the Bail application and extended thereafter as per record adverted to hereinabove, with further conditions imposed to the effect that the application under no circumstances shall leave the country and shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed by the Trial Court during this period of interim bail.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
