M/S Jas Infrastructure And Power Ltd vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2026 Latest Caselaw 1524 Del

Delhi High Court

M/S Jas Infrastructure And Power Ltd vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 17 March, 2026

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                      Judgment Reserved on: 13.03.2026
                                                 Judgment pronounced on: 17.03.2026

                          +      CRL.A. 1596/2025, CRL.M.A. 34399/2025
                                 M/S JAS INFRASTRUCTURE AND POWER LTD           .....Appellant
                                                 Through:   Mr. Shambo Nandy, Advocate.

                                                 versus

                                 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION            .....Respondent
                                             Through: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
                                                       Tarannum Cheema, Mr. Akshay N.,
                                                       and Mr. Akash Singh, Advocates.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
                                                 JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 2312/2025 in CRL.A. 1596/2025

1. This application under Section 430 of the Bhartiya

Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS), read with Section 528

BNSS, 2023, has been filed on behalf of accused number 1 (A1) in

C.C. No. CBI/297/2019 titled "CBI Vs. JAS Infrastructure Capital

Pvt. Ltd. &Ors." on the file of Special Judge(CBI), Rouse Avenue,

New Delhi, Special Judge, (PC Act) (CBI)(Coal Block Cases) -

02, seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the

appeal. The appellant has been found guilty of the offences

punishable under Sections 420 and 120B IPC of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, (the IPC). Vide the order on sentence dated

08.07.2025, A1 has been sentenced to pay a fine of ₹50,00,000/-

(Fifty Lakhs) each for the offences punishable under Section 120B

read with Section 420 IPC and Section 420 IPC.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A1 at

the outset submitted that the sentence of A2, who was also

convicted under the aforementioned sections has been suspended

by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. He submitted that once any

Company goes into insolvency and/or liquidation, no past criminal

liability can be attributed to the said Company and that the

sentence of fine imposed herein shall be suspended. He further

submitted that the sentence imposed was in the year 2025,

however, the company is under insolvency since the year 2019 and

thereafter, in liquidation since the year 2020. He submitted that as

per Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

(the IBC), any liability of the Company for the offence committed

prior to the commencement of insolvency and/or liquidation

proceedings shall cease. He further submitted that as per Section

33(5) of the IBC, once the liquidation order is passed, any legal

proceeding against the Company shall not survive and as per

Section 14 IBC, there shall be a moratorium period upon the

proceedings against the corporate debtor/Company. The learned

counsel submitted that it is essential that the sentence be suspended

for the continuation of liquidation proceedings so as to encourage

buyers for acquiring the assets of the Company. He further

submitted that there is a bar against the action on the property, of

the Company as well as the person who acquires the said property,

under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). In

support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance

upon the dictums in Manish Kumar v Union of India (2021) 5

SCC 1, P Mohanraj &Ors. v Shah Brothers IspatPvt. Ltd.

(2021) 6 SCC 258 and Directorate of Enforcment v Manoj

Kumar Agarwal &Ors. (2021) SCC OnLine NCLAT 121.

3. Per Contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent, has vehemently opposed the present

application. He submitted that the matter pertains to the Coal

Block Allocation cases and the chargesheet in the present matter

was filed way back in the year 2014, which was before the

insolvency proceedings of A1 had been initiated. He submitted that

as per the provisions of IBC, if after the insolvency proceedings

the Company is taken over by a new management which is not

connected with the previous management, the Company will be

protected and also discharged of its liability. He submitted that in

the case at hand, admittedly the CIRP plan was not approved and

there is no take over by any new management, therefore A1 ought

not to be protected. He further submitted that A1 is not covered

under Section 32A IBC and a reading of paras 34 to 36 of the

impugned judgement substantiate the same.

4. Heard both sides.

5. As per Section 32A, the liability of a corporate debtor

for an offence committed under any law prior to the

commencement of CIRP shall cease and the corporate debtor will

not be prosecuted for such an offence from the date, the resolution

plan is approved by the adjudicating authority. However, reading

of the proviso makes it clear that there are conditions attached to

this benign provision i.e. exemption under Section 32A can be

availed only if the resolution plan results in the change in the

management or control of the corporate debtor to a person who

was not: (i) a promoter, or in the management or control of the

corporate debtor or a related party of such person; or (ii) a person

who abetted or conspired for the commission of the offence

according to the relevant investigating authority, and where the

investigating authority has submitted a report or filed a complaint

to the relevant statutory authority or Court. Section 32A also

provides that if the prosecution has been initiated during the CIRP,

corporate debtor shall stand discharged from the date of approval

of the resolution plan.

6. Coming to the case at hand, it is admitted that the

resolution plan was not approved by the adjudicating authority. It

must be remembered that the immunity is premised on various

conditions being fulfilled, the foremost being, there must be a

resolution plan and it must be approved. Moreover, the

aforementioned provision aims at the extinguishment of the

liability of the corporate debtor to provide a clean slate to the 'new

management' and not for the wrongdoers to get away with the

liability. (See Manish Kumar (Supra)).

7. Section 32A IBC has no direct bearing on Section 14

IBC, which provides for a mandatory moratorium period to the

corporate debtor from the insolvency commencement date. Section

32A deals with extinguishment of liability of the corporate debtor,

from the date the resolution plan has been approved by the

Adjudicating Authority, so that the new management may make a

clean break with the past and start on a clean slate. A moratorium

provision, on the other hand, does not extinguish any liability, civil

or criminal, but only casts a shadow on proceedings already

initiated and on proceedings to be initiated, which shadow is lifted

when the moratorium period comes to an end. During the

moratorium period, institution of new suits or continuation of the

pending suits, against the corporate debtor, are temporarily

suspended until the completion of the CIRP. It is also to be noted

that the present proceedings were instituted much prior in time

from the date of insolvency.

8. The appellant does not meet out the necessary

conditions as envisaged under Section 32A IBC. This aspect

coupled with the gravity of the offence committed, this Court is

not inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant/A1.

9. The application is dismissed.

10. List on 15.10.2026.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (Judge) MARCH 17, 2026