SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Vs. AARTI SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Overview 1. Present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the petitioner SFIO seeking to impugn and set aside the order dtd. 28/3/2022 passed by the Ld. ASJ -03, Spl. Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka, New Delhi. Vide the impugned order, Ld. Spl. Judge, has granted regular bail to the respondent/accused herein, namely Aarti Singhal in the case titled SFIO v. Bhushan Power and Steels Ltd with respect to offence under Sec. 447 Companies Act, 2013, investigated by SFIO.

(2.) Ld. Spl. Judge has enlarged the respondent/accused on bail taking into account salient factors namely the beneficial proviso contained under Sec. 212 (6) Companies Act, 2013; the role attributed to the respondent/accused in the said fraud; as three major functionaries of the company have been granted interim protection by the Hon'ble Apex Court in another ED matter pertaining to same/ similar allegations which is still subsisting. Ld. Spl. Judge thus while opining that since the offence is by and large documented and there is no likelihood that the respondent/accused would flee from justice or evade trial, held that no purpose would be served in keeping the respondent/accused in JC and enlarged her on bail.

(3.) It has been submitted that it is settled law that economic offences constitute a class apart and are far more serious to the society as compared to individual criminal offences and they tend to seriously prejudice/destroy the economy of the country, thereby causing immense irreversible damage to the larger public interest. It has been submitted that the Ld. Spl. Judge while granting bail has diluted the mandatory twin conditions as stipulated u/s 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, which is contrary to the spirit and object of the Act.