Rakesh Jain v. State - S.409 IPC - Company Director - Presumption On Culpability
Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 409 - The allegations of diversion of funds by the Company - In an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC there is no presumption regarding culpability of a Director. The same would have to be established in a trial. (Para 13) [Context: The appeal arose from a Delhi High Court order refusing to extend interim bail to Rakesh Jain, a director of M/s Pragat Akshay Urja Limited, accused in an FIR alleging diversion of subsidy funds under sections 409/120B IPC - The Court found it improper that the High Court had repeatedly deferred deciding the regular bail application for want of further deposit. The Court directed the High Court to decide the regular bail application expeditiously.]
Case Info
Case name:
Neutral citation:Not mentioned in the order extract (only case number is given: Criminal Appeal No. 378/2026 @ SLP (Crl) No. 11336/2025).
Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj MisraHon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan
Judgment date:21 January 2026
Caselaws and citations referred:
- Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571
- Kundan Singh v. Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, 2025 SCC OnLine 2568
Statutes / laws referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent)
- Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy)