JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.96 dated 20.05.2025 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Sector-37, Gurugram.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioners in connivance with co-accused siphoned off huge amount of money from the complainant company. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioners have been nominated in the present case solely because of the reason that they are the wife and mother of co-accused Lovish Bahree. He further submits that the present FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of two years, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rests exclusively on documentary material like e-mails, invoices, bank entries, account software records and allied documents and all the said documents are already in the possession of the investigating agency. Hence, there is no apprehension that petitioners can tamper with the evidence. He further argued that the FIR is highly selective, discriminatory and motivated as no proceedings have been initiated against any Japanese Director or consultants who were the sole custodians, decision makers, approvers and operational controllers of every financial activity. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners have clean antecedents as they are not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, vide order dated 02.02.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, she has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. She argued that the petitioner No.1-Priyanka Bahree and co-accused Lovish Bahree provided forged invoices to the complainant company, for which no work was performed by petitioner No.1. Co-accused Lovish Bahree transferred Rs.6,73,357/- to petitioner No.1’s bank account from the complainant company’s bank account and she also received Rs.87,73,129/- of the present fraud from other co-accused. She further argued that petitioner No.2-Rita Bahree is the mother of co-accused Lovish Bahree and she fraudulently received Rs.1,01,65,518/- of the present fraud in her account No.4501721400711005 (ICICI Bank) and other bank accounts which are being identified as part of the investigation. She further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as for obtaining information about the modus operandi and also to obtain information about the other persons involved in the present crime and obtaining other information regarding the present case. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners have played an active role in the crime and, thus, do not deserve the concession of bail.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case, the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR and the allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave