Virender Bhardwaj vs State of Haryana

The instant one is the third petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No.44 dated 05.03.2025, registered under Sections 408, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station Sector 56, District Gurugram. His previous two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Nitin Kumar Gupta alleging therein that he was the authorised representative of Grohe India Private Limited, which is engaged in the business of providing bathroom solutions and kitchen fittings. During an internal audit, it was found by the company that certain irregularities indicating siphoning of its funds were made. A mismatch was noticed in the GST input credit reconciliation relating to invoices raised by its existing vendor, namely Sai Raj Packaging, a Mumbai-based vendor engaged in supplying packaging material to the company. It was further alleged in the FIR that after obtaining the statement of account of the said vendor in March, 2024 and comparing the same with the books of the company, it was found that 54 invoices amounting to Rs.72,72,662/- raised by the legitimate vendor and accounted for in the books of the company were not reflected in the statement of account of the vendor. It was also found that in respect of 298 invoices amounting to Rs.2,86,96,133/-, which were reflected in the statement of account of the legitimate vendor and accounted for in the books of the company, the payments were credited into a bank account other than that of the legitimate vendor. It was further alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with unknown accused persons, devised a scheme to breach the trust of and cheat the company, thereby causing a wrongful loss of Rs.3,62,91,303/- to the company. The petitioner was stated to be working in the finance and accounts functions of the company from March, 2017 to August, 2024 and was responsible for various accounting-related functions, including updating the vendor master containing details of the vendors. On 16.01.2018, the petitioner registered a concern in the name of Sai Raj Packaging on the GST portal, using the same name as the legitimate vendor and a bank account was opened for the said concern and that on 17.05.2018, the petitioner added the bank account of the said concern to the vendor details of the legitimate vendor maintained by the company. As a result, payments relating to 298 invoices amounting to Rs.2,86,96,133/- were credited to the said bank account.

As per the further allegations, the petitioner created 54 forged and fictitious invoices in the name of the legitimate vendor on his office laptop, amounting to Rs.72,72,662/- and that payments against such invoices were credited to the said bank account without receipt of goods or services. The petitioner caused an amount of Rs.3,62,91,303/- to be credited to the said bank account and that part of the amount was thereafter transferred to his personal bank accounts and some amount was withdrawn in cash. It was also alleged that an amount of Rs.2,77,13,370/- was transferred to another bank account. During inquiries made from the petitioner on 08.08.2024, he admitted having committed the alleged acts, following which his services were terminated in August 2024. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 27.07.2025. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, he has been made a scapegoat on account of alleged discrepancies noticed during an internal audit. The petitioner has remained in custody since 27.07.2025. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. The private witnesses, including the complainant, have already been examined and only the official witnesses remain to be examined. It is further argued that the prosecution case is primarily based upon documentary evidence and, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. It is also argued that the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Magistrate and conclusion of trial would take considerable time. The petitioner has clean antecedents. He is ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court and undertakes not to leave India without prior permission of the Court. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

Status report and the custody certificate of the petitioner have been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. He had fraudulently and with mala fide intention had caused a wrongful loss to the complainant company by transferring a huge amount of Rs.4,05,54,624/- in the account of his tainted/fake firms from the account of the company. Learned State counsel further argued that out of the said amount, approximately Rs.2,81,14,974/- was transferred from the petitioner's account and the petitioner had embezzled approximately Rs.1,24,40,250/-. The trial is going on at a proper pace. There are chances of the petitioner’s influencing the witnesses or intimidating them, if released on bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

The petitioner is alleged to have misused his position while working in the finance and accounts department of the complainant company and to have caused transfer of company funds into the account of a fake/tainted firm. He is also alleged to have prepared forged and fictitious invoices, and thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant company. The allegations against the petitioner are undoubtedly serious in nature. However, the investigation in the present case already stands completed and the challan has been filed. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required. The case of the prosecution is primarily based upon documentary material and the relevant record is already in possession of the investigating agency. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel regarding the petitioner influencing or intimidating the witnesses can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions upon him. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has clean antecedents. He has remained in custody for the last more than one year. The complainant and other private witnesses have already been examined and therefore, there are no chances of the petitioner’s intimidating or influencing them. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. The continued detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:-

In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.