Full Text
Translation output
/ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.1589/2019 and CrI.M(Bail)1127/2019 and
Crl.M.A. 12826/2019 SUJATA KHANDBLIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa,Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr.Avnish
Kumar, Mr. Shildrar Srivastava, Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Ruchika Wadhawa and Mr. Sumer Singh Buparai,Advocates
BAIL APPLN.1589/2019 and CrI.M(Bail)1127/2019 and
Crl.M.A. 12826/2019 SUJATA KHANDBLIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa,Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr.Avnish
Kumar, Mr. Shildrar Srivastava, Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Ruchika Wadhawa and Mr. Sumer Singh Buparai,Advocates
VERSUS
SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, Advocate and Mr. Hari Krishan,prosecutor
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, Advocate and Mr. Hari Krishan,prosecutor
BAIL APPLN. 1590/2019 and Crl. M.(Bail) 1133/2019 and Crl.
M.A. 12835/2019
SFlASFll SFIARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vikas Pahwa,Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr.Avnish
Kumar, Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Ruchika Wadhawa and Mr. Sumer Singh Buparai,Advocates
SFlASFll SFIARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vikas Pahwa,Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr.Avnish
Kumar, Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Ruchika Wadhawa and Mr. Sumer Singh Buparai,Advocates
VERSUS
SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, Advocate and Mr.' Hari
Krishan,prosecutor
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, Advocate and Mr.' Hari
Krishan,prosecutor
BAIL APPLN. 1589/2019& 1590/2019 page I of4
2019:DHC:7322
2019:DHC:7322
CORAM;
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
02.07.2019 The petitioners in both these matters were taken in judieial custody on 20.05.2019 but initially released on interim bail on their applications, which were eventually dismissed on 25.05.2019, by a common order in the course ofproceedings arising out ofcomplaint case (no.720/2017) of the respondent — Serious Fraud Investigation
Office (SFIO) by the court of Additional Sessions Judge-03 at
Dwarka Courts Complex for South-west district, the said court also being the courtofSpecial Judge for purpose ofCompanies Act,2013.
The first petitioner Sujata Khandelia (A38) and the second petitioner - Shashi Sharma(A41) have been summoned by the said court by order dated 24.01.2019 to answer the accusations for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477A, 120B of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 211, 297, 299, 301,628,629A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Sections 129, 184, 188, 189, 447, 448 ofthe Companies Act, 2013. The ease involves as many as 177 accused persons including a number of companies.
The petitioners are stated to have been directors ofsome ofthe said company accused during certain period.
While rejecting the applications for release on regular bail, the specialjudge has referred to a challenge that was broughtto this court againstthe summoning order,the petition to that effect having been
BAILAPPLN.1589/2019& 1590/2019 page2of4
-> dismissed by this court by order dated 06.02.2019,a special leave petition brought there- against statedly having been dismissed by the
Supreme court on 08.03.2019. It is, however, pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the said petition challenging the summoning order was not preferred by the petitioners and the contentions urged by them for seeking release on bail, pleading innocence,are entirely distinctfrom those which were taken up and considered in the said previous round qua the summoning order.
It is noted that the learned special judge has refen-ed to the inhibition against release on bail particularly in the context of the offence under Section 447 ofthe Companies Act,2013,by virtue of the provision contained in Section 212(6)(ii). But, it is also noted thatthe trial court has notsubjected the material on record to scrutiny specifically with regard to the two petitioners so as to reach a satisfaction as to whether or not reasonable grounds exist for believingthatthey are guilty ofsuch offence under Section 447ofthe
Companies Act,2013.
In the above facts and circumstances, this court finds the scrutiny ofthe applications for release on bail to be deficient. In all fairness, when contentions are raised by an accused that he or she is notcovered bythe above-mentioned penal provision so as to take him or her outofthe rigor ofthe provision contained in Section 212(6)of the Companies Act,2013,it is the obligation ofthe criminal courtto examine the material from such perspective and record its opinion
BAILAPPLN.1589/2019& 1590/2019 page3 of4
<4 on that score. General observations which may govern the case involving such large number of accused may be misleading, mis directed and unfair approach.
In the above facts and circumstances, it will be proper to set aside the order dated 25.05.2019 of the special judge whereby the applications of the petitioners were dismissed and instead remit the matter in that regard to the special judge for fresh consideration and appropriate orders to be passed thereupon in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly. Given the fact that the petitioners are women, they also pleading certain domestic constraints, compulsions and difficulties and,ofcourse,the grounds set out in the petitions, it will be proper that their applications for release on regular bail receive expeditious attention ofthe specialjudge. In this view ofthe mattei, it is directed that the applications shall be taken up by the said court on 04.07.2019 and decided within a week thereof. Both parties shall be duty bound to appear accordingly and be ready to assist the said court on 04.07.2019 itself. The contentions urged in the present applications may also be raised beforethe specialjudge.
Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master.
R.K.GA¥BA,J JULY 02,2019 yg
02.07.2019 The petitioners in both these matters were taken in judieial custody on 20.05.2019 but initially released on interim bail on their applications, which were eventually dismissed on 25.05.2019, by a common order in the course ofproceedings arising out ofcomplaint case (no.720/2017) of the respondent — Serious Fraud Investigation
Office (SFIO) by the court of Additional Sessions Judge-03 at
Dwarka Courts Complex for South-west district, the said court also being the courtofSpecial Judge for purpose ofCompanies Act,2013.
The first petitioner Sujata Khandelia (A38) and the second petitioner - Shashi Sharma(A41) have been summoned by the said court by order dated 24.01.2019 to answer the accusations for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477A, 120B of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 211, 297, 299, 301,628,629A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Sections 129, 184, 188, 189, 447, 448 ofthe Companies Act, 2013. The ease involves as many as 177 accused persons including a number of companies.
The petitioners are stated to have been directors ofsome ofthe said company accused during certain period.
While rejecting the applications for release on regular bail, the specialjudge has referred to a challenge that was broughtto this court againstthe summoning order,the petition to that effect having been
BAILAPPLN.1589/2019& 1590/2019 page2of4
-> dismissed by this court by order dated 06.02.2019,a special leave petition brought there- against statedly having been dismissed by the
Supreme court on 08.03.2019. It is, however, pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the said petition challenging the summoning order was not preferred by the petitioners and the contentions urged by them for seeking release on bail, pleading innocence,are entirely distinctfrom those which were taken up and considered in the said previous round qua the summoning order.
It is noted that the learned special judge has refen-ed to the inhibition against release on bail particularly in the context of the offence under Section 447 ofthe Companies Act,2013,by virtue of the provision contained in Section 212(6)(ii). But, it is also noted thatthe trial court has notsubjected the material on record to scrutiny specifically with regard to the two petitioners so as to reach a satisfaction as to whether or not reasonable grounds exist for believingthatthey are guilty ofsuch offence under Section 447ofthe
Companies Act,2013.
In the above facts and circumstances, this court finds the scrutiny ofthe applications for release on bail to be deficient. In all fairness, when contentions are raised by an accused that he or she is notcovered bythe above-mentioned penal provision so as to take him or her outofthe rigor ofthe provision contained in Section 212(6)of the Companies Act,2013,it is the obligation ofthe criminal courtto examine the material from such perspective and record its opinion
BAILAPPLN.1589/2019& 1590/2019 page3 of4
<4 on that score. General observations which may govern the case involving such large number of accused may be misleading, mis directed and unfair approach.
In the above facts and circumstances, it will be proper to set aside the order dated 25.05.2019 of the special judge whereby the applications of the petitioners were dismissed and instead remit the matter in that regard to the special judge for fresh consideration and appropriate orders to be passed thereupon in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly. Given the fact that the petitioners are women, they also pleading certain domestic constraints, compulsions and difficulties and,ofcourse,the grounds set out in the petitions, it will be proper that their applications for release on regular bail receive expeditious attention ofthe specialjudge. In this view ofthe mattei, it is directed that the applications shall be taken up by the said court on 04.07.2019 and decided within a week thereof. Both parties shall be duty bound to appear accordingly and be ready to assist the said court on 04.07.2019 itself. The contentions urged in the present applications may also be raised beforethe specialjudge.
Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master.
R.K.GA¥BA,J JULY 02,2019 yg
BAIL APPLN.1589/2019& 1590/2019 , page4of4
JUDGMENT