Adita Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Adita Singh, proprietor of M/s JMD Enterprises, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 305 dated 20.12.2024, registered under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC (now corresponding sections of BNS, 2023). The FIR was filed by Hitachi Astemo Gurugram Powertrain Systems Pvt. Ltd. The company alleged a fraud of approximately ₹12.767 crores orchestrated by two employees and several sham vendors. The petitioner's firm, JMD Enterprises, allegedly received ₹2,20,12,882/- through fabricated purchase orders and fictitious invoices, with a portion transferred as kickbacks to a co-accused. The petitioner claims to have supplied goods and services and denies forgery.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. It noted the serious allegations of siphoning funds amounting to ₹2.20 crores into the petitioner's firm, JMD Enterprises, of which she is the sole proprietor. The Court acknowledged the prosecution's allegations of systematic manipulation of the procurement and payment system by the petitioner to cause wrongful loss to the complainant company. It characterized the case as a serious economic offence, which forms a distinct category and requires a firm approach. Citing the need for custodial interrogation as highlighted by the State counsel, the Court concluded that the petition deserved dismissal. The observations were made solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and not on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged economic offence and her role as proprietor of JMD Enterprises? The petitioner argued that she supplied goods and services as required and that no forgery was committed by her, asserting her implication was solely due to Section 120B IPC. She contended that her firm was falsely implicated. The State, assisted by the complainant's counsel, argued that the petitioner's firm was a conduit for siphoning funds, that she committed a fraud of approximately ₹2.2 crores, and that kickbacks of ₹14.83 lakhs were transferred from her firm's account to a co-accused. They emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to recover evidence and identify beneficiaries, citing the ongoing investigation into the ₹12.76 crores fraud.