Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J
Vineet Jha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-52226-2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Archit Kaushik
For the Respondents: Paras Talwar, Sidharth Barua
In cases of large-scale economic offences involving systematic corporate fraud and breach of trust, the gravity of the offence, the nature of the conspiracy, and the potential need for custodial interrogation for a comprehensive investigation override the fact that an accused has joined the investigation, justifying the denial of anticipatory bail.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B - Economic Offences - Pre-arrest bail - Allegation of large-scale financial fraud involving systemic manipulation of corporate procurement - Petitioner, a Senior Executive, allegedly fabricated purchase orders and forged documents to siphon funds through sham vendors - Court observed that the nature of allegations and material collected indicate a deep-rooted economic offence involving careful planning and systematic execution - Prima facie nexus between the petitioner and the fraudulent transactions established through forensic financial trail and internal documentation - Considering the magnitude of the offence, interest of the institution, and the nature of evidence, the court found no ground to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15, 25, 27)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Senior Executive in the Procurement Department of a corporate entity, was accused of orchestrating a conspiracy to defraud the company of approximately Rs.14 crores. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, in collusion with other employees and fake vendor entities, manipulated SAP systems, generated fabricated invoices, and bypassed internal controls to siphon company funds. Forensic reports confirmed the existence of hundreds of forged documents and untraceable vendors.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the petitioner occupied a central role in the fraud, having the authority to onboard vendors and initiate purchase orders. The forensic evidence and financial records demonstrated a clear flow of embezzled funds into the accounts of the petitioner, rebutting his claim of merely performing clerical duties.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of a multi-crore economic fraud, and whether the custodial interrogation is necessary for the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: In economic offences involving breach of trust, systematic manipulation of corporate systems, and massive diversion of funds through fabricated documentation, the gravity of the offence is a critical factor for the court to consider, and the fact that the petitioner joined the investigation is not sufficient to entitle him to pre-arrest bail, especially when evidence suggests planned, criminal design.
Result: Petition dismissed.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
CRM-21122-2026 and CRM-21123-2026
Applications are allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.
Annexure P-13 is taken on record.
The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
Main case
This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for seeking grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.305 dated 20.12.2024, under Section(s) 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, District Gurugram.
The present FIR was registered on the complaint lodged by Hitachi Astemo Gurugram Powertrain Systems Pvt. Ltd., wherein the petitioner was employed in the capacity of Senior Executive (Purchase). The allegations disclose that the complainant-company was defrauded to the extent of approximately Rs.12.767 crores pursuant to a meticulously orchestrated conspiracy involving two of its employees, namely Rohit Naithani, serving as Executive (Accounts) and the present petitioner Vineet Jha, serving as Senior Executive (Purchase), acting in connivance with several fictitious vendor entities.
It has been alleged that the aforesaid employees, being well acquainted with the internal procurement and payment mechanisms of the company, manipulated the system by generating fabricated purchase requests, forged purchase orders, clearance forms and forged approvals bearing the signatures of competent authorities. It is further alleged that fake invoices were introduced into the SAP system through misuse of the journal voucher booking mechanism which was not ordinarily intended to be utilized for procurement-related transactions.
The complaint further alleges that, on the basis of such fabricated documentation, payments were fraudulently released in favour of entities including Burgeon International, JMD Enterprises, Koncept Enterprises, Shivalik International, Shree Traders, Unique Impex, Shiva International, Virgo International, Swastik International and YVON Technologies Pvt. Ltd., despite no actual supply of goods or rendering of services having taken place. It is further the case of the prosecution that a forensic investigation conducted by Nangia Anderson LLP revealed the existence of 376 fake invoices and 51 forged purchase orders pertaining to the period between January 2023 and March 2024. The further investigation is stated to have further uncovered editable invoice templates, blank quotations and other forged material from the laptops used by the accused employees.
The complaint also records that several of the aforesaid vendor entities were found to be nonexistent at their declared business addresses, while many were had common contact details and GST-related irregularities, thereby indicating their active collusion in the fraudulent scheme. It has additionally been alleged that kickbacks generated from the said transactions were routed back to the accused employees through the vendor entities concerned. The prosecution further alleges that upon suspicion being raised regarding the transactions in question, the accused persons attempted to destroy incriminating material by deleting files and records from their respective systems and the aforesaid acts resulted in wrongful loss to the complainant-company and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no criminal liability can be fastened to him on the basis of the allegations levelled in the FIR. He contends that as per Clause of 20 of employment agreement 01.06.2018, the petitioner was governed by the territorial jurisdiction of Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. On the strength of the aforesaid clause, he contends that the petitioner was asked to join duties at the Noida Plant and that the registration of the present FIR in Gurugram is without jurisdiction.
It is further sub
