Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482
- SEBI Act, 1992 ss. 12, 24(1), 26(1), 27
- Companies Act, 2013 ss. 2(36), 40, 55A, 56, 60, 67, 68, 70, 73, 117B, 117C, 436, 439
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 193
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Considering the nature of offence, seriousness of the crime and also being a proclaimed offender, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner and, thus, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
Judgment
Mr. Sudip Kr. Dutta Mr. S. Dutta Mr. Siddhartha Bose … for the SEBI.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and his father made him a Director in a Company viz. ATM Agro Project Ltd. when he was only 14 years old. He prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioner on any terms and conditions. 2
On the other hand, learned advocate representing the SEBI strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. He further submits that at the time of filing complaint, he attained majority and he was the Director of the aforesaid company. The case was lodged in the year 2018. Subsequently, warrant of arrest was issued and thereafter proclamation and order of attachment was issued by the learned trial court against the present petitioner.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusing the materials available on record, this Court finds that the offence against the petitioner is an economic offence involving more than 42 crore rupees, which was collected from the public at large.
Considering the nature of offence, seriousness of the crime and also being a proclaimed offender, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner and, thus, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
C.R.M.(A) 1981 of 2026 stands dismissed.
All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 3
The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified Photostat copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.