complaint there is clear allegation in paragraph 5 that the complainant gave cheques in the name of the company, Earth Infrastructure Limited. In the complaint the company has not been made an accused by the complainant. The applicant is one of the Director of the company and he is only vicariously liable for the affairs of the company. The Apex Court in the case of Sushil Sethy and another vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, (2020) 3 SCC 240 , has held that in the absence of company being arrayed as a party no proceedings can be initiated against the Managing Director or any Officer of a company. He has further submitted that the complainant has appropriate remedy under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and instead of availing the same he has falsely implicated the applicant for a criminal offence. The applicant is in jail since 10.01.2019 and has criminal history of two cases explained in paragraph 33 of the affidavit in support of the bail application. There is uncertainty about functioning of courts and early conclusion of trial in view of the spread of novel corona virus.
