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 misused their position in the company of the complainant and siphoned off huge amount of money.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner is employed with Kawasaki Robotics India Private Limited. 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 submits 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 during the tenure of the petitioner. 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 his arrest, the petitioner 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 17.12.2025.

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, he 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 and he is the mastermind of the entire fraud. He argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner being the Business Head and Company Secretary of the complainant’s company from 24.07.2015 to 31.10.2023, misused his position and processed unauthorized payments by creating forged payment sheets (putting their own and relatives’ bank accounts) and electronic records, fraudulently transferred money to his own and his relatives’ bank accounts with dishonest intention. He further argued that an amount of Rs.37,53,235/- was illegally transferred from the complainant’s company to 10 bank accounts related to the petitioner and Rs.32,15,000/- was transferred into his own bank account and as such, he has actively participated in the crime. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus operandi of accused and to effect recovery of the amount involved in the alleged fraud. Hence, he 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, the allegations against him are serious in nature and he is stated to be the master mind of the entire fraud. He is all