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 petitioner in connivance with co-accused siphoned off huge amount of money from the complainant company. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner has been nominated in the present case solely because of the reason that he is the brother-in-law 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 petitioner 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 petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is 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 petitioner are serious in nature. She argued that the petitioner is the brother-in-law (jija) of co-accused Lovish Bahree and is also an accused in the present FIR. The petitioner along with co-accused Lovish Bahree provided forged invoice to the complainant company, for which no work was performed by the petitioner. She further argued that the said co-accused Lovish Bahree transferred Rs.33,000/- to the petitioner’s bank account directly from the complainant company’s bank and in addition, the petitioner also received Rs.1,49,000/- from other accused and in total, he had fraudulently received Rs.1,82,000/- out of the amount of the present fraud. She further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to recover the amount of Rs.1,82,000/-, for obtaining information about the modus operandi and also to obtain information about the other persons involved in the present crime and 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 petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and pertain to a well-orchestrated financial fraud involvin