Economic offences necessitate stringent scrutiny; anticipatory bail should be denied when there is a prima facie case and serious allegations loom over the accused, especially if non-cooperation with investigators is evident.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. The present bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [" BNSS "] arising out of FIR bearing No. 19/2023, under Sections 420 /409/477A/201/120B IPC registered at PS Economic Offences Wing, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on the complaint of Dr. J.S. Reddy, Additional Director, Export Inspection Council ["EIC"], New Delhi, FIR no. 19/2023 was lodged wherein it was alleged that EIC Delhi noticed that a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs) was diverted to a private entity namely M/s. BDS 3 Infracon Pvt. Ltd. by Mr. Rajvinder Singh- who was then serving as Deputy Director (Non-Technical) at EIC. Upon scrutiny of the accounts of the previous years, various such transactions were found where the funds of EIC were embezzled and payments were made to various private entities- showing significant financial irregularities and misappropriation of public funds having occurred during the tenure of Sh. Rajvinder Singh.

2.1 As per the investigation, Rajvinder Singh, who has since been compulsorily retired from service following disciplinary proceedings, was found to have fraudulently diverted public funds and embezzled funds of EIC from the year 2014-2019 while being an officer of EIC to the tune of Rs. 32,51,97,267/- (approx. Rs. 32.5 crores) across 31 transactions through 17 different accounts. Some of the recipient companies allegedly refunded the amounts after the incident came to light.

2.2 During investigation, section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ["PC Act"] were also invoked in the present FIR and the investigation was transferred to ACB, New Delhi. During investigation, the prime accused Rajvinder Singh was arrested and chargesheet was filed against him. He was released on regular bail by coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 07.11.2024.

2.3 The name of the petitioner emerged during further investigation. It was alleged that a sum of Rs.11.79 crores had been transferred from the EIA Chennai office into following companies where the petitioner and co-accused Harinder Bashishta were Directors:

i. M/s Vardhman Estates and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

ii. M/s Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd.

iii. M/s Vardhman InfrabuildPvt. Ltd.

iv. M/s Vardhman Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd.

2.4 Out of the fraudulent amount of Rs.11.79 crores transferred in the account of the companies, Rs. 9.69 crores were transferred in the personal account of co-accused Harinder Bashishta- who was arrested in the present case. He was also implicated in another FIR No. 86/2022, but was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2025. He was later granted regular bail in the present case (FIR No. 19/2023) by Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)-02, RADC, New Delhi ["trial court"] vide order dated 03.06.2025.

2.5 During investigation, police officials visited the residence of the petitioner to serve notice under section 41A Cr.P.C., but he was not found at his residence. Thereafter, NBWs were issued against the petitioner, but they could not be executed. Subsequently, process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the petitioner.

2.6 The anticipatory bail application of petitioner has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 03.06.2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application seeking anticipatory bail before this Court.

3. Ld, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner claimed that the petitioner being one of the directors of the company - (M/s Vardhman Estates & Developers Pvt. Ltd.) only looked after the construction aspects of the company, whereas, the financial, marketing and sale was being managed by Mr. Harinder Bashista. It is submitted that Rajvinder Singh dealt with Harvinder Bashishta, and the transactions in question were for booking of a commercial space in a project being developed by M/s Vardhman Estates & Developers Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner was merely