Delhi High Court
Nittin Johari vs Sfio on 17 May, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 17, 2019
+ BAIL APPLN.1213/2019
NITTIN JOHARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Gautam
Khazanchi, Mr. Pradyuman
& Mr. Akhilesh Kumar,
Advocates
Versus
SFIO ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Additional
Solicitor General with Ms. Monika
Arora and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia,
CGSC with Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Mr.
Sahil Sood, Mr. Kushal Kumar,
Mr. Harshul Chaudhary, Mr. Vipul
Acharya, Mr. Praveen Singh & Ms.
Natasha Sakra, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
%
Crl.M(B) 872/2019
This application is disposed of as infructuous.
BAIL APPLN.1213/2019
Petitioner seeks interim bail on the basis of Medical Certificate of
13th May, 2019.
Learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that mother of
petitioner is a terminally ill patient and is admitted in ICU and petitioner
seeks interim bail to meet her and then to take a call as to whether she is
to be put on ventilator or not.
Medical certificate of 13th May, 2019 stands verified by
respondent-SFIO.
The opposition to this application by learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for respondent - The Serious Fraud Investigation
Office (SFIO) was on the ground that in the first instance, petitioner ought
to have approached the designated Court for the relief claimed in this
petition and it is not a fit case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
directly. Attention of this Court was drawn to sub-section 6 of Section
212 of the Companies Act, 2013 to point out that for grant of interim bail,
a satisfaction is required to be recorded by the Court that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of the offence
alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon this Court's Coordinate
Bench decision in Islamuddin @ Chottey Vs. State of Delhi 2000 Cri LJ
108 to submit that bar, as contained in Section 212 of the Companies Act,
2013 applies even to a case where interim bail is sought.
In rebuttal, learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that
Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 will not be attracted when
application for interim bail on medical grounds is considered. Attention
of this Court was drawn to order of 26th February, 2016 of a Division
Bench of this Court in Crl. Ref. 1/2015, Athar Pervez Vs. State to submit
that bar under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 will not apply
where interim bail is sought under compelling circumstances, like in the
instant case.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR of this Case, Status Report
filed, I find that the merits of this case are not required to be gone into
while considering prayer for interim bail. In view of dictum of this
Court's Division Bench decision in Athar Pervez (Supra), bar as
contained in Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 will not apply while
dealing with application for interim bail on urgent medical grounds. In
view of Medical Certificate of 13th May, 2019 petitioner is permitted to
meet his mother, so that a call can be taken as to whether mother of
petitioner has to be put on ventilator or not.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate
that instead of granting interim bail, petitioner is permitted to go to
hospital in custody to meet his mother at his expense for few hours either
tomorrow i.e. 18th May, 2019 or on Monday i.e. 20th May, 2019 during
early morning hours for maximum period of six hours, so that he is
brought back in custody before the sunset.
The concerned Jail Superintendent be apprised of this order
forthwith to ensure its compliance through special messenger/
mentioning.
With aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of while not
commenting upon the merits of this case.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court
Master to counsel representing both the sides.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 17, 2019
r
