Mohit Gupta vs State of Haryana and another

Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.62 dated 05.02.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 340 and 61 of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar.

The gravamen of the allegations, as emerging from the FIR, is that during the relevant period certain employees of Tata Capital, Barwala Branch, in collusion with private persons, prepared and processed forged documents and obtained loans in the names of persons who were either not genuine applicant(s) and/or whose particulars had been falsely used. On the basis of such forged documentation, loans were processed and an amount of about ₹9,35,000/- was allegedly disbursed which had resulted in loss to the company. The complaint had specifically named the involved persons working at the Barwala Branch and alleged their collusion with private persons in processing the fraudulent loans. The FIR has further recorded that Rajesh and Pritam were working as Loan Officers and were responsible for collecting loan documents and uploading the customer details on the software of the company. It has been further alleged that Rajesh, in collusion with Anu and Nisha, uploaded the forged documents relating to eight customers from one village, whereas Pritam, in collusion with Anu and Nisha, uploaded forged documents relating to another set of customers belonging to another village. The FIR further attributes to Khushiram (Branch Manager) the role of getting Sumit Kumar to upload forged documents relating to three persons. As regards the role attributed to the petitioner (herein) is concerned, it has been alleged that the petitioner was working as a Quality Executive, who used to visit the house(s) of the customers and verify the original documents, including Voter ID, Aadhaar Card and bank passbook, in connection with the proposed loans. The allegation against the petitioner is that he misused the position entrusted to him and, in collusion with Rajesh, Pritam, Anu, Nisha and Khushiram, verified the documents and submitted them for approval thereby facilitating the fraudulent loan transactions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as he is innocent. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was only a Quality Executive whose duty was confined to visiting the premises of the customers and verifying their original documents. According to learned counsel, the FIR does not allege that the petitioner himself prepared or fabricated any forged document; uploaded any forged document; sanctioned any loan; transferred any amount or received any part of the alleged cheated amount. According to learned counsel, the function(s) relating to uploading the forged documents, checking the applications, sanctioning and disbursing the loans have been attributed to the other accused persons. It has been further contended that there is no specific material on record which would show any meeting of minds/conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused persons. It has been contended that merely because the petitioner was employed at a particular post and was required to perform verification duties and the performance of said duty cannot, by itself, be treated as conscious participation in a criminal conspiracy. Furthermore, the relevant documentary material is already in the possession of the company and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted/required in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has deep roots in society; is a permanent resident of the State and has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel has further asserted that the petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when required, shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness and shall abide by all the condition(s) that may be imposed by this Court in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of concession of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

In oppugnation, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious involving large-scale embezzlement. Learned State counsel has iterated that the petitioner, in collusion with co-accused, facilitated the fraudulent transactions. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner has to be confronted with the material collected during investigation and for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Learned State counsel has emphasized that releasing the petitioner on bail at this crucial stage may hamper the ongoing investigation and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing of witness(s). Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

As per the material available on record and the stand of the prosecution before this Court, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case pertain to embezzlement of ₹9,35,000/- in Haryana Tata Capital Ltd. Barwala. The material collected during the course of investigation prima facie reflects that the petitioner was working as a Quality Executive and his specific responsibility was to visit the premises of the customer(s) and verify their original identity and banking documents. The purpose of such verification was to ensure that the document(s) and the applicant(s) were genuine before the loan was processed. The case of the prosecution is that despite being entrusted with the responsibility of verifying the documents properly for the purpose of loan, the petitioner did not carry out the said work properly and instead carried it out in a manner which formed part of the fraudulent loan transactions. The trial Court, while declining the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, has specifically recorded that the role of the petitioner was to verify the documents at the spot and the allegation against him is that he did not perform the task assigned to him thereby facilitating commission of the crime. In the considered opinion of this Court, the material available at this stage, prima facie, indicates active involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. The contention that the work of the petitioner was only to verify the documents does not merit acceptance at this stage, as the prosecution case is based upon a chain of acts allegedly performed by different persons. Whether the petitioner acted knowingly or innocently is a matter that can only be determined after the completion of investigation/trial. It is trite law that the anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief and is not to be granted as a matter of right particularly in cases involving serious economic offences.

The argument that the petitioner did not himself create the forged documents or sanction the loans does not, at this stage, completely disassociate him from the alleged offence. The exact nature and extent of the involvement of the petitioner can be effectively unearthed only through a free and fair investigation. The material(s) which are available on record disclose a prima facie connection of the petitioner with the alleged offence. In the present case, the petitioner was entrusted with the verification function, which according to the prosecution was an important link in the process through which the fraudulent loans came to be sanctioned. The investigation in the present case is at a crucial stage. At this stage, the material collected during investigation cannot be brushed aside as vague or baseless.

The plea of false implication raised by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact and involves appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage. The same can only be adjudicated upon the conclusion of the investigation or during the course of trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the on-going investigation. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. Furthermore, the trial Court has already declined the plea of the petitioner after considering the relevant factors, including the manner in which the name of the petitioner surfaced during investigation. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)

In the present case, the investigation is still at a crucial stage and the grant of anticipatory bail at this juncture will impede the fair and effective investigation. Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the specific role assigned, the stage of investigation as also the necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.

In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: