Saurabh Vats vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Saurabh Vats, seeks regular bail in FIR No. 305 dated 20.12.2024, registered under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and Section 120B of the IPC (corresponding sections of BNSS, 2023 are also mentioned) at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurugram. The prosecution alleges that M/s Hitachi Astemo Gurugram Powertrain Systems Pvt. Ltd. was defrauded of approximately ₹12.767 crores by two employees, Rohit Naithani and Vineet Jha, in collusion with several sham vendors. The employees allegedly fabricated purchase requests, purchase orders, clearance forms, forged signatures, and planted fake invoices into the SAP system, causing funds to be released to non-existent vendors. A forensic investigation revealed 376 fake invoices and 51 forged purchase orders between January 2023 and March 2024. The petitioner was nominated as an accused based on the confessional statement of co-accused Rohit Naithani, recorded during police custody. The petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2025 and has been in custody for approximately 9 months. A challan has been presented. Other co-accused have been granted regular bail.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The primary reasoning was that the petitioner was nominated as an accused based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, Rohit Naithani, which was recorded in police custody. The Court noted that other co-accused, namely Rohit Naithani, Rahul Kumar Jha, Harsh Singh, and Chandra Vardhan Jain, had already been admitted to regular bail by this Court. The Court found no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars, especially in light of the bail granted to other individuals involved in the case. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting further on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail, considering he was nominated as an accused based on a co-accused's confessional statement recorded in police custody and has been in custody for approximately 9 months? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he was not initially named in the FIR and was nominated as an accused solely on the basis of an inadmissible confessional statement of co-accused Rohit Naithani. He argues that most of the amount deposited into his account was re-deposited in good faith, indicating a lack of dishonest intention. He highlights that he has been in custody for about 9 months, a challan has been presented, and several co-accused, including Rohit Naithani and Rahul Kumar Jha, have been granted regular bail by this Court. Respondent's arguments: The State of Haryana vehemently opposes the bail application, asserting that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.