NARASA REDDY B Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners were said to be Directors of a company, namely Astha Infrastructure Limited, having its registered office at Bangalore. It was classified as a non-Government company. There were other Directors besides the petitioners, some of whom had resigned including the petitioners, and it was duly intimated to the Registrar of Companies in Form No. 32. Among them, Rajapani Kirah and Rajesh Keerthi were the Directors who were actively managing the affairs of the company. The petitioners herein were never part of the regular functioning of the company, though they were designated as Directors of the company. The company had sustained loss and had approached the Company Court seeking winding up of the company. The petitioners are not in a position to produce any records of the company, but have gathered this information from the High Court Website and e according to their information, their company has been wound up by an order dated 10.12.2010. It however transpires that according to the information provided by their family members, the Durg Police from Chhattisgarh State have visited Bangalore with an intention to arrest the petitioners and have made inquiries about the whereabouts of the petitioners. It is on learning about this circumstance whereby there appears to be a claim for a large sum of money as being due from the said company 'Astha Infrastructure Limited', that the petitioners have been named as representing the company, against whom offences are alleged under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is in this background that the petitioners had obtained anticipatory bail. They were required to appear before the Court at Durg, in terms of a condition imposed by the Court granting anticipatory bail, on or before 20.7.2016. However, on account of unavoidable circumstances, the petitioners were unable to comply with the condition and they now apprehend arrest in view of the anticipatory bail having spent itself out and as the petitioners have failed to comply with the condition imposed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners would state that documents are available to substantiate their contention that they were not able to comply with the condition imposed by the Court granting bail for good and valid reasons and such documents could even be produced before the lower Court at the appropriate point of time and therefore, seek indulgence of this Court to grant bail for a period of two weeks, to enable them to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Case No. 838/2013.