Allahabad High Court
Rahul Kothari vs Union Of India, Through Assistant ... on 5 May, 2020
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR In Chamber Judgment/order reserved on 01.05.2020 Judgment/order delivered on 05.05.2020 Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12048 of 2020 Rahul Kothari vs. Union of India Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. The present bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant. The prayer made in the bail application is reproduced here under:-
"Pass an order directing the immediate release of the applicant in the case pertaining to the order dated 21.02.2018 bearing no. 03/117/2018-CL-I (NR) passed by the Central Government under section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 directing the SFIO to investigate into the affairs of Rotomac Global Pvt. Ltd., in light of the threat posed to the life and personal liberty of the applicant because of rampant spread of Corona Virus/Covid-19 till such time that the pandemic is curtailed, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary; and pass an order to enlarge the accused applicant on interim bail in the case pertaining to the order dated 21.02.2018 bearing no. 03/117/2018-CL-I (NR) passed by the Central Government under section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 directing the SFIO to investigate into the affairs of Rotomac Global Pvt. Ltd. till disposal of the bail application moved by the applicant on such terms and conditions as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice as well;"
2. The present matter has been nominated to this Bench by Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 30.4.2020 and the same was heard through video conferencing and judgment/order was reserved by this Court on 1.5.2020.
3. Heard Sri S.V. Raju, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal and Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged through e-mail which are on record.
5. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.2.2018 vide letter no. 03/117/2018-CL-I (NR) passed by the Central Government under section 212 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as 'the Companies Act) directing the Special Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter referred to as 'SFIO') to investigate into the affairs of Rotomac Global Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the RGPL') and 10 others and Frost International Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'FIL') in the public interest. The applicant was arrest by SFIO at New Delhi vide Arrest Order dated 19.3.2020. Thereafter, the SFIO obtained his transit remand from the court at Delhi and brought the applicant to Kanpur Nagar on 21.3.2020. Thereafter, the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar which is the designated Court under section 436 of the Companies Act, 2013 remanded the applicant to judicial custody on 21.3.2020. A copy of the arrest order dated 19.3.2020 is annexed with the present bail application.
6. The applicant before approaching this Court for the prayers aforesaid has approached the Apex Court vide Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 125 of 2020 for grant of bail in view of the threat posed to his life in the light of Covid-19.
7. The Apex Court on 1.4.2020 was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition and directed the applicant to approach High Court by filing bail application, thus the applicant has filed the present bail application before this Court seeking bail for limited period, i.e., till such time that pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed.
8. Sri S.V. Raju, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has basically argued that in view of the rampant spread of Covid-19 (Corona Virus) the applicant may be released on bail in the present case till such time when the pandemic is curtailed and further interim bail may be granted to him till the disposal of the present bail application. He submitted that the applicant is aged about 33 years and he is having a family of which he is the sole bread earner. The applicant has the liability of septuagenarian parents, who suffer from serious medical conditions. He has also the liabilities of his five year old son and his wife. It is further stated that the applicant himself is suffering from urinary infection which is not subsidizing and increasing the blood sugar level and he was also admitted on 27.3.2020 in the jail hospital, hence there is grave and impeding threat to his life on account of his arrest in the wake of rampant spread of the Corona Virus, hence the applicant be released on this ground alone. He further pleaded in para-32 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant reserves liberty to file another bail application (if the need so arise, at a later stage). It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the SFIO was directed vide order dated 21.2.2018 to investigate into the affairs of RGPL pursuant to the registration of F.I.R. by the C.B.I. on 18.2.2018. It is stated that the allegation made in the F.I.R. dated 18.2.2018 and the investigation being conducted by the SFIO are pari-materia. On 22.2.2018, the applicant was arrested by the CBI in pursuance of the F.I.R. dated 18.2.2018 and after his arrest, the applicant was granted bail by the Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.11.2018 passed in Bail Application No. 3492 of 2018 copy of which is annexed as annexure-4 to the present bail application. Being aggrieved by the said bail order, the C.B.I. filed an SLP before the Apex Court being S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5931 of 2019 titled as "State through CBI/BS & FC/ v. Rahul Kothari". The Apex Court vide order dated 22.11.2019 refused to interfere with the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the S.L.P., copy of which is also annexed as annexure-5 to the bail application. He submitted that as the applicant has already been granted bail in case crime no. RC/BD1/2018/E/0001 for the offence under sections 120-B I.P.C. read with section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and section 13 read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, police station CBI/BS & FC/New Delhi, District Kanpur/Delhi, he is entitled to be released on bail in this case also for the offence under section 447 and 448 of the Companies Act which is punishable upto 10 years as in the case, registered by the C.B.I., in which he has been granted bail, the offences are punishable upto seven years and life imprisonment. He further submitted that the case of the applicant may be considered in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020 wherein the Apex Court has directed the States/Union Territories to constitute a High Powered Committee to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. The Apex Court further directed to consider the release of the prisoners, who have been convicted or under trial for the offence for which prescribed punishment is upto 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoners has been convicted for lesser number of years than the maximum. He has pointed out that the applicant before approaching this Court, has approached the Apex Court by filing S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 125 of 2020 in which the Apex Court vide order dated 1.4.2020 has given liberty to the applicant to file a bail application before this Court copy of the same is annexed as annexure-12 to the bail application, hence the applicants has approached this Court by means of filing this application for bail till the curtailment of pandemic Corona Virus (COVID-19). Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has been co-operating with the investigation at regular intervals since 2018 and on 18.3.2018, a day prior to his arrest, he had gone to New Delhi for the purpose of interrogation and the applicant is not at flight risk as he has already surrendered his passport before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I. at Lucknow. He also has argued that so far as the bar contained under section 212 (6) (ii) of the Companies Act,2013 will not apply while dealing with an application for bail on medical grounds in view of the Proviso to Section 212 (6) (ii) of the Companies Act, 2013 as compared to Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') as there is no such proviso under section 37 (1) (b) (11) in the N.D.P.S. Act and the applicant being a sick person, the bar does not apply on him in view of the proviso to section 212 (6) (ii) of the Companies Act, 2013, hence the applicant may be released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon para-22 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Gurucharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 and further relied on para-30 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 relating to grant of bail.
9. Per contra, learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri Gyan Prakash appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the prayer made in the present application and has vehemently argued that the applicant was arrested along with two other persons for commission of offence of fraud with Public Sector Banks involving total amount of Rs. 7500/- crores approximately for the offence under sections 447, 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 which provides for maximum punishment upto ten years. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs in exercise of its power under section 212 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013 vide order dated 21.2.2018 has ordered investigation in the affairs of 11 Companies of Rotomac Group. On the basis of material collected during investigation an approval was sought from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to investigate into the affairs of another Company, i.e., Frost International Ltd. and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide order dated 22.8.2019 granted the said approval. The provisions contained under sections 212 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013, empowers certain category of officials of SFIO to arrest any person on the basis of material collected during investigation and after recording reasons to believe that any person is guilty of offence punishable under section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. In exercise of the aforesaid powers granted under section 212 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 and after recording reason to believe in this regard on the basis of material collected during investigation since 21.2.2018 qua Rotomac Group of Companies and since 22.8.2019 qua Frost International Ltd., the applicant along with two others was arrested on 19.3.2020 for the offence punishable under section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. The applicant has been arrested after there being sufficient material which was collected and obtained by respondent on 19.3.2020 and arrest was made by the Arresting Officer after recording reason to believe and taking approval to arrest the aforesaid persons as per the prescribed rules. The applicant after being brought on transit remand was produced before the Special Judge (Companies Act) at Kanpur Nagar an application was moved by the applicant for seeking relief of interim bail/house arrest, home cooked food, bedding, clothes and medicines etc. on the ground of spread of Corona Virus (COVID-19) in pursuance of the order dated 16.3.2020 passed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the Special Judge (Companies Act) rejected his prayer for interim bail/house arrest but the other prayers for home cooked food, bedding, clothes and medicines etc. was not opposed by SFIO and as such the same are being provided to the applicant while being in jail and remanded him to judicial custody. He submitted that the plea of sickness which has been taken by the applicant due to coming in contact with Corona Virus (COVID-19) infected persons, does not appeal to reason as the applicant is not such a sick person as has been argued as he is only suffering from urinary infection and making emotional argument before this Court for taking care of old parents and family though he is involved in an offence of fraud in the affairs of Company of Rotomac group which are 11 in number. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that on the instructions of SFIO, the CBI has registered an F.I.R. against the applicant for the offence in question, is absolutely incorrect and denied, as the C.B.I. has investigated into the offences other than the Companies Act, 2013 which is a Special Act. The CBI has not investigated the fraudulent affairs of Rotomac Group which consists of RGPL and 10 other Companies and FIL as has been ordered by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. He argued that SFIO is a statutory Investigation Office established under Section 211 of the Companies Act, 2013 and in terms of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 it may conduct investigation into the affairs of the Company under the order of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Moreover, the investigation in question has been ordered by the Central Government in exercise of its power under section 212 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013 in the instant case and not on the basis of registration of F.I.R. by C.B.I. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards paras-25 to 28 of the written submissions regarding denial made by respondent SFIO with respect to the averments made in para-14 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application categorically. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicant with respect to the bar contained under section 212 (6) (ii) of the Companies Act will not apply while dealing with the application for bail on medical ground is concerned, it appears to be also not correct in view of the fact that the applicant is not such a sick person, who is not able to perform normal pursuits of his life as he is only suffering from urinary infection and stated to be having low blood sugar. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards the averment made in the written objection in para-32 in which it had referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 12.09.2019 in the matter of S.F.I.O. v. Nittin Johari and another (Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2019) wherein the Apex Court has set aside order of the Delhi High Court on the said issue and remanded the matter to the High Court and thereafter the Delhi High Court rejected the bail application of the said accused as has been stated in para-34 of the written objection. Learned Assistant Solicitor General in support of his argument has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Nittin Johari and another (Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2019, P Chidrambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24, Y.S. Jagan Moham Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2013 (7) SCC 439, and in Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46 and State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 in which the Court has observed that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of Public funds, needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the companies. The court thus observed that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will ential, the larger interest of the public/State and other similar considerations.
10. Considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. It transpires from the record that the applicant before approaching this Court has filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 125 of 2020 before the Apex Court and on 1st April, 2020, the Apex Court passed the following order:-
"The above writ petitions are filed for grant of bail in favour of the petitioners in veiw of the threat posed to their lives in the light of COVID-19. Notice was issued on 27.03.2020.
Today, we are informed that the High Court of Allahabad is taking up matters which are of urgent nature. As the Writ Petitions pertain to grant of bail, we are of the opinion that the petitioners should withdraw these writ petitions to approach the High Court by filing bail applications. The High Court of Allahabad is requested to take up the bail applications at the earliest. We make it clear that we have ot heard the matters on merit.
The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn."
12. From a perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Apex Court, it is apparent that the applicant was given liberty to approach this Court by filing bail application and the applicant in pursuance of the said order, had filed the present application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for immediate release on bail taking into account serious threat to his life because of the illness, from Corona Virus. Thus, it is clear that he has not moved a regular bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. before this Court in the present case and has come with a limited prayer to immediately be released till such time that the pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed and further reserved his right to move another application (if need so arise, at a later stage) as has been averred by him in para-32 of the affidavit file in support of the bail application which speaks a lot of his conduct and the contention of learned counsel for the respondent appears to be justified to a great extent that the applicant want to seek relief indirectly which he cannot seek directly being a difficult task realizing the nature and gravity of the offence as nothing had stopped him to file a regular bail application before this Court on merits which this Court is also hearing, showing urgency in the matter.
13. Be that as it may. The applicant has chosen to file the present bail application under sections 439 Cr.P.C. for immediate release till such time that the pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed, the Court in the interest of justice proceeds to decide the same with the prayers made therein.
14. The main argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that due to Covid-19 (Corona Virus) infection, the applicants being a sick person has great risk to his life if he is kept in jail where there are much chances of he being infected by said Corona Virus. Due to over crowding in District Jail where he is confined, he cannot follow the guideline of social distancing measures, including significantly limiting face to face interaction and due to lack of medical care regarding his life in the prevalent environment in jail, he may be released immediately on bail by this Court. In this regard, the applicant's counsel has also drawn the attention of Court towards the order dated 23.3.2020 passed by the Apex Court Suo Motu in the aforesaid writ petition and also circular dated 18.3.2020 of this Court whereby the working of court below has been suspended. So far as the order dated 23.3.2020, it is evident that the Apex Court has directed each State/Union Territories to constitute a High Powered Committee to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or on interim bail for said period as may be thought appropriate. The Court has directed that the State/Union Territories could consider the release of the prisoners, who have been convicted or under trial for the offence which prescribed punishment upto 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoners, who have been convicted for lesser number of years than the maximum. The Apex Court further left it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners, who should be release as aforesaid, depending upon gravity and the nature of offence and other relevant factor thereto. In pursuance of the same, High Powered Committee had been constituted in the State of U.P. as has been informed by the Secretary U.P. Legal Services Authorities Lucknow vide order dated 27th March, 2020 and as per the resolution of the High Powered Committee in its meeting dated 27.3.2020 had issued certain directions regarding convicted and under trial prisoners and has resolved as follows:-
"The Committee has resolved that the following category of convicted prisoners (excepts who are Foreign Nationals) to be released on parole on furnishing personal bond with the undertaking written on the personal bond itself that he/she shall surrender before the prison authority after expiry of the parole period.:-
a) Convicts already on parole would get extended special parole of 08 additional weeks.
b) Convicts who have already availed 01 parole peacefully and surrendered on time will be granted afresh one-time special parole for 08 weeks.
c) Convicts who are not facing a sentence of more than 7 years shall be released on special parole for 08 weeks.
The Committee further resolved that following category of under trial prisoners (except prisoners who are Foreign Nationals) may be released on Interim Bail.
a) Under trial prisoners facing criminal cases in which maximum sentence is 07 years and presently confined in jails may be released on interim bail for 08 weeks by the Sessions Court, Additional Sessions Court or the Chief Judicial Magistrate including other Judicial Magistrates, as the case may be, on furnishing personal bond with the under taking written on the personal bond itself that he/she shall surrender before the Court after expiry of the interim bail period. Other conditions may be imposed by the Court if it thinks fit, considering the circumstances of the case.
b) The grant of interim bail may be done by visiting the jails, on alternate days, by the Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge/the Chief Judicial Magistrate/other Judicial Magistrates, as the case may be, on the bail applications at the jails itself and it shall be done forthwith. For drafting bail applications, to be moved by under trial prisoners assistance and services of prison officers, jail staff, jail Para Legal Volunteers (PLVs) and Panel Lawyers empanelled with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) may be utilized under intimation to the Secretary, DLSA of the concerned district. For this purpose passes shall be issued to the Judges/Magistrate & Panel Lawyers during lock down period by the District Administration.
c) The Undertrial Review Committee contemplated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 prisons, (2016) 3 SCC 700, shall meet every week and take such decisions in consultation with the concerned district authority as per the said judgment.
d) Jail Superintendent shall be in continuous touch with concerned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority regarding disposal of interim bail applications moved by the under trial prisoners so that proper arrangements may be made."
15. From a perusal of the resolution of the said Committee, it is apparent that the Committee has resolved to release the under trial prisoners on interim bail, who are facing criminal cases in which the maximum sentence is of 7 years and presently confined in jails, for a period of eight weeks by the competent courts. Thus, the contention of Assistant Solicitor General Sri Gyan Prakash appearing on behalf of the respondent, who vehemently argued that the applicant is not entitled for bail/interim bail as per the order passed by the Apex Court Suo Motu in the aforesaid writ petition by which a High Powered Committee has been constituted as the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the under trial prisoners as the offence in which the applicant has been confined in jail is punishable with a maximum sentence upto 10 years, appears to have substance. Moreover, so far as the risk of applicant being infected due to Corona Virus because of his illness in the lack of following strict norms of social distancing measures including face to face interaction is concerned, it has been pointed by learned Assistant Solicitor General that the applicant is not such a sick person, who is not able to perform normal pursuits of his life as he is only suffering from urinary infection and stated to be having low blood sugar for which there is adequate facility of his treatment in the jail hospital and the applicant had himself admitted that he was admitted in the jail hospital on 27.3.2020. Moreover, the applicant had moved an application before the Special Judge (Companies Act) Kanpur Nagar for providing him home cooked food, clothes, bedding and medicines etc. was not opposed by the S.F.I.O. which is being provided to him and the said fact has not been denied by learned counsel for the applicant. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicant with respect to the fact that the applicant had already been released on bail in the F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I. with respect to Rotomac Global Pvt. Ltd. for the offence in case crime no. RC/BD1/2018/E/0001 under sections 120-B I.P.C. read with section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and section 13 read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Lucknow Bench of this Court on 30.11.2018 against which the S.L.P. filed by the C.B.I. before the Apex Court was dismissed on 22.11.2019 is concerned, it appears from the order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court that the applicant, who was one of the Director of the said Company and his father Vikram Kothari was Managing Director, Ms. Sadhna Kothari, who belong to his family were involved along with other public servants, who were Bank officials and the F.I.R. was lodged by the C.B.I. was on the complaint lodged by the Bank of Baroda against RGPL which was aggrieved by some of the transactions of the Company and the officials of the Bank of Baroda in collusion with the applicant and Vikram Kothari, who is the father of the applicant, were involved in forging and fabricating letter of credit and the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and his father Vikram Kothari in the said case. It appears that because of Bank of Baroda being aggrieved by some of the transactions of RGPL had individually made a complaint to C.B.I to investigate the case and the C.B.I. had registered a case on its complaint against the Company in question in which the applicant and his father was Managing Director, hence the said bail order cannot be of any help to the applicant in the present case as the investigation in the present case ordered by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, by the Central Government in pursuance of the order passed on 21.2.2018 into the fraudulent affairs of RGPL and 10 others and F.I.L. by the SFIO is in public interest in view of Section 212 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013 which is a Special Act. It appears from the grounds of arrest received by the applicant on the date of his arrest on 19.3.2020 that the applicant was found to be functioning as the Director of RGPL on 1.12.2004 and as a whole time Director on 16.8.2014 and under his direction he used Mercantile Trade for rotation of funds continuously manipulating and falsified books of account and financial statements of the Company to fraudulently inducing the banks and public financial institutions for obtaining credit facilities. As a result of fraudulent activities the Company has defaulted against outstanding liabilities of Rs. 2886/- crores approximately to banks and public financial institutions thereby causing wrongful loss to them and his act and omission are punishable under section 447 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013. He stated that the applicant has been co-operating in the investigation and a day prior to his arrest by respondent, the applicant went for the purpose of interrogation on 19.3.2020 at Delhi and no complaint has been filed till date under the Companies Act, 2013. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent through his objection filed has drawn the attention of the Court that the applicant has been arrested for the commission of offence of fraud with Public Sector Banks and Financial Institutions involving total amount of Rs. 7500/- crores approximately (Rs. 4000/- crores approximately in RGPL and Rs. 3500/- crores in F.I.L.) and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide order dated 21.2.2018 ordered investigation into the affairs of 11 Companies of Rotomac Group and Frost International Ltd. and during investigation, it has been revealed that the approval was taken from Ministry of Corporate Affairs to investigate the affairs of another Company, i.e., F.I.L. and Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide order dated 22.8.2019 granted the said approval. There is also a criminal antecedent of the applicant which has been registered by the C.B.I. at the instance of Bank of Baroda in which the C.B.I. has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and his father Vikram Kothari and is pending trial before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI Court at Lucknow.
16. Thus, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence which shakes the conscience of the society and public at large, investigation being still pending and there are strong apprehension that there would be chances of tampering of evidence by the applicant, the prayer of the applicant for grant of immediate release till such time that pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed, is hereby refused.
17. Accordingly, the prayer made in the present bail application for immediate release on bail till such time that pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed to the applicant, namely, Rahul Kothari pertaining to the Order dated 21.02.2018 issued by respondent no. 2 in furtherance of Order No. 03/117/2018-CL-II (NR) dated 21.02.2018 and Order No. 7/117/2108/CL-II (NR) dated 22.08.2019 under sections 447 read with 36 (c) and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, is hereby rejected.
18. However, it is directed that the I.G. (Prison) State of U.P. Lucknow is directed to ensure that the applicant is kept safely in District Jail, Kanpur Nagar where he is stated to be confined as on date taking all necessary precautions as has been issued by the State of U.P. in the context of Corona Virus (COVID-19) particularly, if any, also with respect to prisoners detained in jail throughout the State.
19. It is further directed that the respondent shall expedite the investigation of the present case and conclude the same at the earliest.
20. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court would not prejudice the right of the applicant for consideration of his regular bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C., if any, filed before this Court or the Court below, as the case may be, as the same has been made only for the disposal of the present bail application.
21. Copy of this order shall be produced by the counsel for the applicants before I.G. (Prison) State of U.P. Lucknow for necessary information and follow up action. The learned Assistant Solicitor General shall also forward a copy of this order to the I.G. (Prison) State of U.P. Lucknow for its immediate follow up and compliance, forthwith.
Dated: 05.05.2020 Shiraz.