SH UDAY J DESAI VS. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE (CRL.) No.

3479 OF 2021

PETITIONER SH UDAY J DESAI

RESPONDENT SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE
ACCUSED SH UDAY J DESAI (A1) SUJAY DESAI (A2) RAHUL
KOTHARI (A3)

U/S. U/s 219(b) of the U/S 212(8) of the U/S 212(8) of the
Companies Act Companies Act Companies Act
U/s 212(14) of the U/s 212(14) of the U/s 212(14) of the
Companies Act Companies Act Companies Act

EXPLANATION 219(b)- A copy of the 212(8) – provision to the 212(8) - provision

documents of aforesaid to section shall not apply to the section
(under relevant
be sent or shall apply only with shall not apply or
provisions)
the direction specified shall apply only
212(14)- Prosecution
by the central with the direction
against the company.
government. specified by the
central
212(14) - Prosecution
government.
against the company.
212(14)-
Prosecution
against the
company
ORDER OF Rejected the bail
THE application and the
ALLAHABAD Supreme Court also
HC & rejected the SLP petition
SUPREME filed.
COURT
And a SLP is again filed in
the Supreme Court.

OCCUPATION Chairman and Managing CEO of Forest Promoter of the

OF ACCUSED director of Frost International Limited Rotomac group of
International Limited (FIL) Forest
International
Limited.
RC NO Initially, the petitioner was
arrested by SFIO is
annexed ‘ANNEXURE P-8
(Page No. 123 to 124) and
charge sheet was filed.
RC2172021A0001
registered by the Central
Bureau of Investigation
against the petitioner.
(12.01.2021)

DATE OF
REPORT AND
Arrest of the applicant on
COMPLAINT
19.03.2020 and the report
and the complaint was filed
on 15.05.2020
‘ANNEXURE P-11(Pages
163 to 226
Crmnl Misc Bail
Application No. 22234 of
2020 for regular bail and
SLP (CRMNL) NO 2393
OF 2020 (‘ANNEXURE P-
13 Pages 228)
WP (Crl) No. 124 of 2020
is annexed hereto and
marked as (‘ANNEXURE
P-12’ Pages 227)

List of dates

1995 Frost international was incorporated. The petitioner has been a

shareholder and director of the company since its incorporation.

11/01/2019 Haribhakti & Co.filled a LLP report on the basis of which Bank of India
declared the account of FIL as “Fraud”

22/08/2019 MCA ordered SFIO to investigate the affairs of FIL (Annexure P2 page
76)
19/03/2020 Petitioner was arrested by SFIO and a chargesheet was filed.
(Annexure P8 page 123)

20/03/2020 Petitioner filed Writ Petition before the Supreme Court

21/03/2020 Petitioner shifted to Kanpur Jail from Delhi and has been in judicial
custody ever since.

1/04/2020 The Supreme Court ordered the petitioner to take back the writ petition
(Annexure P9 and file a bail application before the Allahabad High Court. Petitioner
Page 126-127) filed a bail application on the same day before the Allahabad High
Court. (Annexure P10 - page 127 to 162)

05/05/2020 The petitioner The High Court dismissed the Bail Application

06/05/2020 SFIO submitted its report to MCA 

15/05/2020 SFIO filed complaint u/s 212 of Companies Act 2013 before Kanpur
Sessions Court. Petitioner was named as “Accused No 43”. (Annexure
P11 Page 163-226)

28/05/2020 Petitioner filed an SLP impugning the order dated 05/05.2020. 

22/07/2020 Petitioner filed for criminal misc. regular bail before The Allahabad High
Court

17/08/2020 Petitioner tested positive for Covid-19 and was moved to Government
Hospital, Kanpur

28/08/2020 Petitioner sought for an urgent hearing for interim bail before the High
Court. It was rejected on the same day (Annexure P15 page 268 - 274)

17/11/2020 SFIO filed a counter affidavit. (Annexure P16 Page 275-497)

23/11/2020 Petitioner filed rejoinder (Annexure P17 Page 498 - 535)

08/02/2021 Petitioner filed IA

08/02/2021 SLP denied by The Supreme Court (Annexure P18 page 536)

25/03/2021 The Allahabad High Court denied the criminal misc. Bail application
(Page 1- 10)

N/A Petitioner has filed a SLP challenging the Allahabad High Court
Judgement of 25/03/2021. (Page 14 - 61)

   IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Para 2 (Page 268) VOLUME - 2 ANNEXURE P-15 -  The CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL
APPLICATION No. 22234 of 2020 application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.PC with
prayer to release the applicant on bail in Sessions Trial No. 577 of 2020 titled Serious Fraud
Investigation Office vs. Rotomac Global Pvt . Ltd. & 68 others, arising out of the complaint
under Section 212(6) r/w Section 212(14) of the Companies Act, 1965, read with Section
1953 Cr.P.C.

Para 5 (Page 269) - The applicant  was examined by a team of three doctors on 23.8.2020
and his condition was found stable with notes in report that he  can be treated in Lala Lajpat
Rai Hospital, Kanpur attached with G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur. The Chief Medical
Officer, Kanpur Nagar has also submitted a report dated 23.8.2020 that after medical
examination of the covid 19 positive applicant. It is stated in the report that there is no
occasion to release the applicant on the interim bail for two months or permit him to go Max
Hospital, New Delhi for his treatment. 

Para 10 (Page No. 273) There is no doubt that every citizen of India including prisoners
have full rights of proper treatment and in the present case, the applicant was not denied
treatment by the District Administration. In the fact under the order of Court, he was very well
examined by expert doctors and was found that his condition is stable and can be very well
treated at the place of his detention i.e Kanpur 

Para 11 (Page 274)- In the matter of Raj Kumar Modi (Supra), the applicant was released on
bail for treatment of his mother who was seriously ill, which is not applicable in the case of
the applicant. It appears that he was necessarily required for treatment of his mother. The
next case relied upon is Rahul @ Vijay (supra) in which the court has granted interim bail for
two months for treatment of applicant, which is saying that he can very well be treated at
Kanpur Nagar. The facts of the third case Shankar Khandelwal (supra is totally different as in
that case there was a requirement of surgery which was not possible at the place of
detention of the applicant and Apex Court granted relief. 

Para 12 (Page 275) - In the present case, there are reports of Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur
as well as three doctors’ team and in report, after examination it is opined that his health is
stable and he can be treated at Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur. Therefore, there is no good
reason to differ with the opinion of the experts. Under this particular reason the bail was
rejected. 

     FINAL JUDGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ON 25-03-2021

VOLUME 1 Para 16 - So far as the order granting interim protection passed in favour of
Sunil Verma, Anoop Kumar as well as Vikiram Kothari is concerned, if the prohibition
contained under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act is declared unconstitutional and
struck-down from the Statue, then in that situation also merits of the present matter will not
change . Thus, on the basis of interim protection granted to co-accused by the Apex Court,
the applicant cannot be enlarged on bail. 

Para 17 – It is evident that this situation arose due to falsification in the books of account furnished
by the company before the bank concerned. Hence, if the aforesaid facts are considered at this stage
in the light of the submissions realized across the bar, allegations made against the applicant and the
company concerned cannot be overlooked/ignored.

Para 17 – Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, keeping in mind the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of accused
and without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, the court is in the view that there is
no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant has
not made out a case for bail.