Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner-accused seeking bail in case under Sections 120-B, 417, 418, 420 and 477-A of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 147 and 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Companies Act’) and Sections 58-A, 211(7), 227 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘old Companies Act’) over continuous incarceration for 3 years and 5 months, a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra*, J., held that merely on the ground of his prolonged incarceration, he could not be held entitled to seek benefit of bail especially when his previous petition had been dismissed by passing a detailed order which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Respondent-Serious Fraud Investigation Office to expedite the trial.
Background
In the present case, a complaint was filed against the accused which arose from the order passed by the Central Government through Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act and Section 43(2)(3)(c)(i) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (‘LLP Act’) an investigation into the affairs of Adarsh Group of Companies and its 125 Limited Liability Partnership Companies was ordered by the respondent on the allegations of siphoning of funds of Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (‘ACCSL’).
As per the investigation conducted, huge amount of funds of ACCSL, which belonged to two lakh depositors and were running into several crores of rupees, were received by the companies under investigation on unsubstantial and questionable projected balance sheet and financial statements.
Sessions Judge cum-Special Judge under Companies Act through an order summoned the accused under Section 447 of the Companies Act whereas process was issued against the other individuals and companies arraigned as accused for commission of offences punishable under different provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 447 of the Companies Act.
The accused was a partner to the extent of 18 per cent in a project that was started by one of the Companies under investigation was brought under the fold of investigation on the allegations that he being an authorized signatory siphoned off funds in an illegal manner by securing the same from ACCSL. It was alleged that he siphoned off Rs. 45.20 crores by misusing his authorization and by taking benefit of his position, on the pretext of work of the project but the above said amount was utilized for his personal benefits and benefits of associated individuals/entities. He had also withdrawn an amount of Rs. 19.93 crore from the said project in the form of advances but only an amount of Rs. 9.72 crore was explained subsequently. Accordingly, in July 2022, he was arrested.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted the accused’s contention that Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’) entitled him to be released on bond and that he could not be taken or kept in custody for a long period of time. The Court relied on Pankaj Jain v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 743 and reiterated that there was no question of an accused getting an automatic right to bail if he appeared before the Court pursuant to the summons issued by a Court. Thus, the Court found no force in the said argument.
Further, the Court noted that the present case was accused’s second petition mainly on the ground that there was prolonged delay in conclusion of the trial and that he was in custody since July 2022. The Court stated that the twin conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act could be diluted in case of prolonged incarceration, however, accused being summoned under Section 447 of the Companies Act needed to be considered as it involved a serious offence.
Considering that the accused’s claim regarding returning of Rs. 85 crores was not substantiated by any material placed on record and that his first bail plea was dismissed by the high Court and was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Court held that even though a successive regular bail application could not be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability, however, for such petition to succeed, the petitioner was required to show some substantial change in circumstances. Thus, the Court stated that merely on the ground of his prolonged incarceration, he could not be held entitled to seek benefit of bail in the present petition.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition at hand and directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial by making all possible efforts.
[Rajeev Kumar Rana v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, CRM M No. 23555 of 2025, decided on 22-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, Arnav Ghai and Nitin Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent: Puneeta Sethi, Senior Panel Counsel and Y.S. Thakur, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
