Ashish Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN NJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG ARH CRM-M-31787-2026 Ashish Ku umar ....Petitioner V/s Haryana State of H Date of d decision: 03.07.2026 ....Respondent Date of U Uploading : 03.07.2026

CORAM

M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:

Mr. Yashveer Kharb, Advoca ate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, , Senior DAG Haryana.

Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi, A Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate Advocate with e for the complainant.

***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) SUMEET 1.

Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petition ner seeking g grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest b bail under Section 482 of BNS SS, 2023 in F FIR No.202 dated 28.04.2026 r registered for offences punisha ble under Sec ctions 408 of IPC (corresponding g to Section 316(4) of BNS, 202 23) at Police S Station Sector 65, Gurugram, Di istrict Gurugram.

2.

The allegations, as set-out in n the petition in hand, are that complaina ant namely Manish Arora, Aud dit Manager (Accounts & Finan ce) of Javi Sy ystems India Pvt. Ltd., has subm mitted a complaint alleging ther ein that the p petitioner was employed with the e company from June 2018 till year 2022

2. During the course of his empl loyment, he was entrusted with responsib ilities with regard to the payroll l system and financial processes s of the compa any. It has been further alleged t that taking advantage of his offic cial position and access to the payroll mechanism, the petitioner h had

manipulat ted the payroll records by creati ing fictitious employee entries a facilitated d transfer of salary amounts i into the bank accounts alleged dly belonging g to himself, his relatives and other known persons. As per complaina ant, the irregularities came to l light only during an internal au udit conducted d in the year 2025. Upon verific cation of the payroll records, ba ank statement ts and digital data; several suspi icious transaction(s) were detec ted which led d to the registration of the in nstant FIR. During the course of investigat tion, it has been allegedly reve ealed that a substantial number of beneficiar ry accounts were connected w with persons residing in Bicho oli, District P Panipat, Haryana. In this mann ner, the company claims to ha ave a wrongful loss of ₹65,18,941/- suffered a - as a consequence of the alleg ged fraudulen t acts.

2.1.

The FIR further reflects t that after the discrepancies w ere detected, the petitioner allegedly acknowl ledged his liability and entered in nto a settlem ment with the complainant-com mpany and accordingly the earl lier complaint t stands withdrawn. Under the e settlement, the petitioner is sta ted to have undertaken to repay the amou unt involved in installments a initially m made certain payments. However r, according to the complainant, he subsequen ntly defaulted in adhering to the agreed repayment schedule and d an ng amount of ₹57,98,089/- was outstandin s remained to be paid. It has be een further alleged that despite repea ated demands follow- -up communic cations, the petitioner had failed to repay the remaining liability.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that r has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as ned allegation ns raised against the petitioner are false and mala fide. Learn

counsel h has further iterated that the alle egations contained in the FIR are vague, ex xaggerated and based on assum mptions without any independ ent material w which establish the involvemen nt of the petitioner in the alleg ged offences.

It has been further contended th hat the prosecution has tried to g ive a crimina al colour to what is essentially y a monetary dispute between parties. A According to learned counsel, af fter the alleged discrepancies ca me to light, th he parties have amicably resolve ed the matter and the petitioner h has executed an affidavit dated 07.08.2025 whereby he agreed to repay alleged a amount in installments. Fur rthermore, pursuant to the s aid agreemen nt, the complainant-company has s accepted the settlement and a also received substantial payment(s) from th he petitioner. Learned counsel h has emphasize ed that the present FIR has been n lodged only because the petition ner could not adhere to the repayment schedu ule in its entirety and, therefore, continuati ion of criminal proceedings am mounts to misuse of the process of law.

Lea rned counsel has canvassed that t the entire case of the prosecuti is based o on documentary and electronic e evidence, including payroll recor rds, bank state ements, digital data and WhatsA App communications, all of wh ich are alread dy in possession of the complain nant-company and the investigati ing agency. T Therefore, no useful purpose w would be served by subjecting r to custodial interrogation. Mor reover, the petitioner is ready a willing to o join the investigation and coop erate with the investigating agen ncy as and w when required. The petitioner u undertakes to comply with all condition( (s) that may be imposed by th he Court and assures that he sh hall make him mself available for interrogation whenever called upon.

Haryana, has deep roots in society an nd there is no likelihood of his abscondin ng or evading the process of law in case he is enlarged on pre-arr rest bail. On n strength of these submissions s, the grant of anticipatory bail l is entreated for.

4.

Per contra, learned State c counsel has opposed the grant of anticipato ory bail to the petitioner by argu uing that the offence committed by the petitio oner is serious in nature. Learn ned State counsel has iterated t hat during the e course of the employment of th he petitioner with the complaina antcompany, , he misused his authorized a access to the payroll system a fraudulen tly created fictitious employee e records thereby facilitating transfer o f substantial amounts into bank accounts belonging to himself, his relatives a and other known persons. Acco ording to learned State counsel, fraud cam me to light only during an interna al audit conducted in the year 20 25, whereupo on verification of payroll records s, bank statements and digital d data revealed large-scale financial irregulariti ies.

Furthermore, the investigati has unea arthed material indicating that t company funds amounting to ₹65,18,94 41/- were siphoned off through various transactions and routed d to accounts linked with the petitioner and his associates. It has been furth her contended d that the settlement relied upon n by the petitioner does not dil ute the crimin nality of the allegations, howev ver, it must also be noted that r has acknowledged his liability y after detection of the fraud a agreed to repay the misappropriated amo ount. Despite having made cert ain initial pa ayments, the petitioner allege edly defaulted in honouring t and a sum of ₹57,98,089/- st settlemen till remains outstanding.

r is necessary for a fair and e effective investigation as it is n not confined only to the documents already c collected but extends to tracing money tra ail and identifying the beneficia aries of the fraudulent transfers as also to asc certain the involvement of other persons. Accordingly, a prayer h has been mad de for the dismissal of the instant petition.

4.1.

Learned counsel for the com mplainant while raising submissi in tandem m with the learned State counsel , has iterated that the investigati has revea aled that the petitioner was act tively involved in the conspira acy.

Learned counsel has emphasized tha at economic offences such as embezzlem ment, fraud and criminal breach h of trust are serious in nature a involveme ent of the petitioner has been pri ima facie established and should d be looked at t as a threat to the society. Gra anting him bail at this stage m may enable him m to tamper with the evidence or r influence witnesses. On the ba asis of these su ubmissions, the dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for.

5.

I have heard the learned cou unsel for the rival parties and ha ave gone throu ugh the available record of the c case.

6.

As per the case put forth in n the FIR in question, indubitab bly, serious al legations have been levelled aga ainst the petitioner. The allegatio ons contained d in the FIR cannot be brushed aside as vague or baseless as FIR in the e present case reveals alleged ma anipulation of the payroll system m of a private company namely Javi Systems I India Pvt Ltd.. The material plac ced before th he Court prima facie indicate s that during the course of employme ent of the petitioner, he was entr rusted with the responsibilities w with regard to the payroll system and financial l processes of the company. As p per antthe prose cution case, the petitioner, whi ile working with the complaina

company, , has allegedly misused the pa ayroll system to transfer compa any funds into o his own bank accounts and the accounts of his relatives a known pe ersons by creating fake emplo oyee entries. The alleged amou unt of ₹65,18,941/-. The plea of involved is substantial, i.e. to the tune r that the matter is purely civil i in nature because a settlement h has been arriv ved at between the parties canno ot be accepted at this stage. In considere d opinion of this Court, the FIR R does not arise merely from no onpayment o of the settled amount but the al legations relate to manipulation n of company records and unauthorized tr ransfer of company funds. T The subsequen nt settlement and partial repaym ment of the amount does not, by itself, enti itle the petitioner to the concessi ion of anticipatory bail particula arly in view o f the allegations made against th he petitioner. It is trite law that anticipato ory bail is an extraordinary reli ief and is not to be granted as s a matter of right particularly in cases involv ving serious economic offences.

7.

At the stage of considering of a plea for anticipatory bail, Court is not required to meticulously evaluate the evidence but on nly required t to see whether the allegations pr rima facie disclose involvement t of the petitio oner which require further inves stigation. In the instant case, Court is o of the considered view that the a allegations are not only specific b but also supp ported by financial transactions s. Whether such allegations are ultimately y proved or not are a matter of tr ial and cannot be pre-judged at t this stage. It i is settled law that while consider ring a plea for anticipatory bail, Court mu ust keep in mind the gravity o of the offence, the nature of allegation ns and the requirement of c ustodial interrogation. Econom mic cial offences, being committed with deliberate e design and affecting the financ

integrity o of institutions are to be treated a as grave offences. The investigati is at a na ascent stage and the recovery of crucial documentary eviden nce coupled with other circumstances deta ailed in the investigation poi ints towards th he active complicity of the peti itioner in the alleged offence. T The nature an nd gravity of the offence nece essitates a thorough investigati which, at t this stage, cannot be conducte ed without the petitioner being in custody.

Moreover, no exceptional or c compelling circumstance has be een demonstra ated which would warrant the g grant of anticipatory bail in such h a serious o offence. The petitioner, in a c alculated and fraudulent mann ner, proceeded d to defraud the complainant-com mpany which is a grave and serio ous economic c offence.

8.

It is befitting to mention her re that while considering a plea for grant of a anticipatory bail, the Court has to o equilibrate between safeguardi ing individual l rights and protecting societa al interest(s). The Court ought to reckon wi ith the magnitude and nature of f the offence; the role attributed d to the accuse ed; the need for fair and free in nvestigation as also the deeper a wide imp act of such alleged iniquities on n the society. At this stage, there e is no materi ial on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out agai inst the petitio oner. The material which has come on record and prelimina ary investigat tion, appear to establish a reason nable basis for the accusation of r. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to r, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effect ive investigat tion.

In State v. Anil Sharma, (1 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (C Cri) 1039, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) "6.

well-ensconced with a favourable e order under Section 438 of the Code e. In a case like this, effective inter rrogation of a suspected person is s of tremendous advantage in disinter rring many useful informations and a also materials which would have been concealed. Success in s uch interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is w well protected and insulated by a pre e-arrest bail order during the time he e is interrogated. Very often interroga ation in such a condition would reduce e to a mere ritual. The argument tha at the custodial interrogation is frau ught with the danger of the person b being subjected to third-degree meth ods need not be countenanced, for, su uch an argument can be advanced by y all accused in all criminal cases. Th he Court has to presume that responsi ible police officers would conduct th hemselves in task of disintering offen nces would not conduct themselves as o offenders."

9.

Accordingly, this Court is o of the considered opinion that r does not deserve the concession n of anticipatory bail in the fact ual milieu of f the case in hand. Moreove er, custodial interrogation of r may be necessary to unravel the e full extent of the conspiracy.

10.

In view of the prevenient rati iocination, it is directed as under r:

(i) The petition in hand is dismis ssed being devoid of merits.

(ii) Nothing said hereinabove sh hall be deemed to be an expressi of opinion n upon merits of the case/investig gation.

(iii) Pending application(s), if any y, shall also stand disposed off.

July 03, 2 Ajay (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No