Ashish Kumar v. State of Haryana

IN Ashish Ku

State of H

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1seeking g 2023 in F under Sec at Police S

¶2complaina of Javi Sy that the p year 2022 responsib the compa position THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

umar

V/s Haryana

decision: 03.07.2026 Uploading : 03.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Yashveer Kharb, Advoca Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi, A Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest b FIR No.202 dated 28.04.2026 r ctions 408 of IPC (corresponding Station Sector 65, Gurugram, Di The allegations, as set-out in ant namely Manish Arora, Aud ystems India Pvt. Ltd., has subm petitioner was employed with the

¶2During the course of his empl ilities with regard to the payroll any. It has been further alleged t and access to the payroll

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-31787-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL ate for the petitioner. , Senior DAG Haryana. Advocate with e for the complainant. filed on behalf of the petition bail under Section 482 of BNS registered for offences punisha g to Section 316(4) of BNS, 202 istrict Gurugram. n the petition in hand, are that dit Manager (Accounts & Finan mitted a complaint alleging ther e company from June 2018 till loyment, he was entrusted with l system and financial processes that taking advantage of his offic mechanism, the petitioner h

ner SS, ble 23) ce) ein s of cial

manipulat facilitated belonging complaina conducted statement which led investigat beneficiar District P suffered a fraudulen

2.1. detected, a settlem complaint to have initially m subsequen outstandin further communic

¶3allegation ted the payroll records by creati d transfer of salary amounts i g to himself, his relatives and ant, the irregularities came to l d in the year 2025. Upon verific ts and digital data; several suspi d to the registration of the in tion, it has been allegedly reve ry accounts were connected w Panipat, Haryana. In this mann a wrongful loss of ₹65,18,941/- t acts. The FIR further reflects t the petitioner allegedly acknowl ment with the complainant-com t stands withdrawn. Under the undertaken to repay the amou made certain payments. However ntly defaulted in adhering to the ng amount of ₹57,98,089/- was alleged that despite repea cations, the petitioner had failed Learned counsel for the r has been falsely implicated ns raised against the petitioner

ing fictitious employee entries a into the bank accounts alleged other known persons. As per light only during an internal au cation of the payroll records, ba icious transaction(s) were detec nstant FIR. During the course ealed that a substantial number with persons residing in Bicho ner, the company claims to ha - as a consequence of the alleg that after the discrepancies w ledged his liability and entered in mpany and accordingly the earl e settlement, the petitioner is sta unt involved in installments a r, according to the complainant, agreed repayment schedule and s remained to be paid. It has be ated demands follow-to repay the remaining liability. petitioner has iterated that into the FIR in question as are false and mala fide. Learn

dly udit ank ted of of oli, ave ged ere nto lier ted he d an een -up

counsel h vague, ex material w offences. a crimina parties. A to light, th executed alleged a agreemen received emphasize could not continuati law. Lea is based o bank state are alread agency. T willing to as and w condition( make him further arg has further iterated that the alle xaggerated and based on assum which establish the involvemen It has been further contended th al colour to what is essentially According to learned counsel, af he parties have amicably resolve an affidavit dated 07.08.2025 amount in installments. Fur nt, the complainant-company has substantial payment(s) from th ed that the present FIR has been adhere to the repayment schedu ion of criminal proceedings am rned counsel has canvassed that on documentary and electronic e ements, digital data and WhatsA dy in possession of the complain Therefore, no useful purpose w r to custodial interrogation. Mor o join the investigation and coop when required. The petitioner u

(s) that may be imposed by th mself available for interrogation gued that the petitioner is a perm

egations contained in the FIR mptions without any independ nt of the petitioner in the alleg hat the prosecution has tried to g y a monetary dispute between fter the alleged discrepancies ca ed the matter and the petitioner h whereby he agreed to repay rthermore, pursuant to the s s accepted the settlement and a he petitioner. Learned counsel h n lodged only because the petition ule in its entirety and, therefore, mounts to misuse of the process t the entire case of the prosecuti evidence, including payroll recor App communications, all of wh nant-company and the investigati would be served by subjecting reover, the petitioner is ready a erate with the investigating agen undertakes to comply with all he Court and assures that he sh whenever called upon. It has be manent resident of District Panip

are ent ged ive me has aid also has ner of rds, ich ing ncy hall een pat,

Haryana, abscondin bail. On entreated

¶4anticipato the petitio during the company, fraudulen transfer o relatives a fraud cam whereupo revealed has unea ₹65,18,94 accounts contended the crimin agreed to initial pa settlemen State cou has deep roots in society an ng or evading the process of law n strength of these submissions for. Per contra, learned State c ory bail to the petitioner by argu oner is serious in nature. Learn e course of the employment of th , he misused his authorized a tly created fictitious employee f substantial amounts into bank and other known persons. Acco me to light only during an interna on verification of payroll records large-scale financial irregulariti arthed material indicating that 41/- were siphoned off through linked with the petitioner and d that the settlement relied upon nality of the allegations, howev r has acknowledged his liability repay the misappropriated amo ayments, the petitioner allege t and a sum of ₹57,98,089/- st unsel has emphasized that th

nd there is no likelihood of in case he is enlarged on pre-arr s, the grant of anticipatory bail counsel has opposed the grant uing that the offence committed ned State counsel has iterated t he petitioner with the complaina access to the payroll system a e records thereby facilitating accounts belonging to himself, ording to learned State counsel, al audit conducted in the year 20 s, bank statements and digital d ies. Furthermore, the investigati t company funds amounting various transactions and routed his associates. It has been furth n by the petitioner does not dil ver, it must also be noted that y after detection of the fraud a ount. Despite having made cert edly defaulted in honouring till remains outstanding. Learn he custodial interrogation of

his rest l is of by hat ant-his 25, data to d to her ute ain

confined money tra also to asc been mad

4.1. in tandem has revea Learned embezzlem involveme looked at enable him of these su

¶5gone throu

¶6serious al contained FIR in the a private before th employme regard to the prose r is necessary for a fair and e only to the documents already c ail and identifying the beneficia certain the involvement of other de for the dismissal of the instant Learned counsel for the com m with the learned State counsel aled that the petitioner was act counsel has emphasized tha ment, fraud and criminal breach ent of the petitioner has been pri t as a threat to the society. Gra m to tamper with the evidence or ubmissions, the dismissal of the I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c As per the case put forth in legations have been levelled aga d in the FIR cannot be brushed e present case reveals alleged ma company namely Javi Systems I he Court prima facie indicate ent of the petitioner, he was entr the payroll system and financial cution case, the petitioner, whi

effective investigation as it is n collected but extends to tracing aries of the fraudulent transfers persons. Accordingly, a prayer h petition. mplainant while raising submissi , has iterated that the investigati tively involved in the conspira at economic offences such h of trust are serious in nature a ima facie established and should anting him bail at this stage m r influence witnesses. On the ba instant petition is entreated for. unsel for the rival parties and ha case. n the FIR in question, indubitab ainst the petitioner. The allegatio aside as vague or baseless as anipulation of the payroll system India Pvt Ltd.. The material plac s that during the course of rusted with the responsibilities w l processes of the company. As p ile working with the complaina

not as has acy. as d be may asis

ave bly, ons m of ced with per ant-

company, funds into known pe involved been arriv considere payment o company subsequen itself, enti in view o anticipato matter of

¶7Court is required t the petitio Court is o also supp ultimately stage. It i Court mu allegation offences, , has allegedly misused the pa o his own bank accounts and ersons by creating fake emplo is substantial, i.e. to the tune r that the matter is purely civil i ved at between the parties canno d opinion of this Court, the FIR of the settled amount but the al records and unauthorized tr nt settlement and partial repaym itle the petitioner to the concessi f the allegations made against th ory bail is an extraordinary reli right particularly in cases involv At the stage of considering not required to meticulously to see whether the allegations pr oner which require further inves of the considered view that the a ported by financial transactions y proved or not are a matter of tr is settled law that while consider ust keep in mind the gravity o ns and the requirement of c being committed with deliberate

ayroll system to transfer compa the accounts of his relatives a oyee entries. The alleged amou of ₹65,18,941/-. The plea of in nature because a settlement h ot be accepted at this stage. In R does not arise merely from no legations relate to manipulation ransfer of company funds. T ment of the amount does not, ion of anticipatory bail particula he petitioner. It is trite law that ief and is not to be granted as ving serious economic offences. of a plea for anticipatory bail, evaluate the evidence but on rima facie disclose involvement stigation. In the instant case, allegations are not only specific b s. Whether such allegations ial and cannot be pre-judged at t ring a plea for anticipatory bail, of the offence, the nature of ustodial interrogation. Econom e design and affecting the financ

any unt has on-n of The by arly s a nly t of but are this mic

integrity o is at a na coupled towards th nature an which, at custody. demonstra serious o proceeded economic

¶8grant of a individual reckon wi the accuse wide imp no materi the petitio investigat investigat 1039, the of institutions are to be treated a ascent stage and the recovery with other circumstances deta he active complicity of the peti nd gravity of the offence nece t this stage, cannot be conducte Moreover, no exceptional or c ated which would warrant the g offence. The petitioner, in a c d to defraud the complainant-com c offence. It is befitting to mention her anticipatory bail, the Court has to l rights and protecting societa ith the magnitude and nature of ed; the need for fair and free in act of such alleged iniquities on ial on record to hold that prima oner. The material which has tion, appear to establish a reason r. Thus, it is not appropriate r, as it would necessarily tion. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as "6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orie

as grave offences. The investigati of crucial documentary eviden ailed in the investigation poi itioner in the alleged offence. T essitates a thorough investigati ed without the petitioner being compelling circumstance has be grant of anticipatory bail in such alculated and fraudulent mann mpany which is a grave and serio re that while considering a plea o equilibrate between safeguardi al interest(s). The Court ought f the offence; the role attributed nvestigation as also the deeper a n the society. At this stage, there facie case is not made out agai come on record and prelimina nable basis for the accusation of to grant anticipatory bail to cause impediment in effect 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (C under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ented than questioning a suspect who

nce ints The in een h a ner, ous for ing to d to e is inst ary ive Cri) n is

¶9milieu of

10.

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

July 03, 2 Ajay

well-ensconced with a favourable a case like this, effective inter tremendous advantage in disinter materials which would have interrogation would elude if the protected and insulated by a pre interrogated. Very often interroga a mere ritual. The argument tha with the danger of the person b need not be countenanced, for, su accused in all criminal cases. Th police officers would conduct th would not conduct themselves as o Accordingly, this Court is o r does not deserve the concession f the case in hand. Moreove r may be necessary to unravel the In view of the prevenient rati The petition in hand is dismis Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

e order under Section 438 of the Code rrogation of a suspected person is rring many useful informations and a been concealed. Success in s suspected person knows that he is w e-arrest bail order during the time he ation in such a condition would reduce at the custodial interrogation is frau being subjected to third-degree meth uch an argument can be advanced by he Court has to presume that responsi hemselves in task of disintering offen offenders." of the considered opinion that n of anticipatory bail in the fact er, custodial interrogation of e full extent of the conspiracy. iocination, it is directed as under ssed being devoid of merits. hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

e. In s of also uch well e is e to ught ods y all ible nces ual r: