Rameshwari Devi vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Rameshwari Devi, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 305 dated 20.12.2024, registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 408, and 120-B of the IPC. The FIR alleges a conspiracy by two employees of Hitachi Astemo Gurugram Powertrain Systems Pvt. Ltd. to defraud the company of approximately ₹12.76 crores through sham vendors. The petitioner is alleged to be the proprietor of Koncept Enterprises, one of the vendors, and to have connived in preparing forged bills and invoices without supplying materials. The forensic investigation revealed numerous fake invoices and purchase orders between January 2023 and March 2024. The petitioner claims she is an uneducated old lady, and her son, who managed the company's operations and is also an accused, has been arrested. She states her account was used as a mule account, receiving approximately ₹4 crores which were withdrawn after GST deduction and handed over to an accused employee.

Held

The Court held that the police had collected sufficient documentary evidence prima facie proving the petitioner's involvement in the crime. Economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracy and substantial financial loss are considered a class apart, requiring a stricter approach in bail matters. The complainant was defrauded of ₹12.76 crores, and the petitioner's bank account received ₹4.09 crores without lawful justification. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation highlighted by the State counsel, the Court found that the present petition for anticipatory bail deserved to be dismissed. The observations made were limited to the disposal of the bail application and not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No. 305 dated 20.12.2024, registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 408, and 120-B of the IPC, considering the gravity of the alleged economic offence and the stage of investigation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner is an uneducated old lady, and her son, who managed her company's operations and is also an accused, has already been arrested. She claims to be a mule account holder whose account was used in the crime, receiving approximately ₹4 crores which were withdrawn after GST deduction and handed over to an accused. She argues that custodial interrogation is not required as the case is based on documentary evidence. Respondent's (State of Haryana and complainant) arguments: The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR concerning a serious economic fraud of ₹12.76 crores. She is the proprietor of Koncept Enterprises and part of the conspiracy. Her husband and son are also accused. There is sufficient oral and documentary evidence, including bank statements showing fraudulent receipt of ₹4,60,93,599/- and Phone-pay transactions for kickbacks. A deposit of ₹20.50 lakhs after the FIR registration suggests an admission of guilt. The disclosure statement of the main accused also implicates her. Custodial interrogation is necessary to unravel the end-use of funds, identify account operators, establish nexus with other vendors, and recover proceeds of crime. The offence is of a high magnitude and requires a stricter approach.