Vineet Jha vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Vineet Jha, sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged by Hitachi Astemo Gurugram Powertrain Systems Pvt. Ltd., alleging fraud of approximately Rs. 12.767 crores. The petitioner, employed as Senior Executive (Purchase), allegedly conspired with another employee and fictitious vendors to manipulate procurement and payment systems. This involved generating fabricated purchase requests, forged purchase orders, and fake invoices, leading to payments to non-existent entities without actual supply of goods or services. A forensic investigation revealed 376 fake invoices and 51 forged purchase orders between January 2023 and March 2024. The prosecution also alleged attempts to destroy evidence and kickbacks routed through vendor entities.

Held

The Court held that the FIR was not without jurisdiction, as the Head Office of the company was in Gurugram, and financial control vested there, establishing a part of the cause of action. Regarding the petitioner's role, the Court found that the detailed reply filed by the complainant substantially addressed the court's earlier queries and furnished material particulars regarding the petitioner's role in generating purchase orders, linkage with the procurement process, and the overall modus operandi. This material, at this stage, prima facie established the involvement and participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offense and sufficiently answered the concerns that had weighed with the Court while granting interim protection. The Court reasoned that the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the requirement of custodial interrogation, and the larger impact of the offense on the financial and institutional integrity of the complainant entity were to be considered. The Court concluded that the circumstances did not prima facie reflect innocence on the part of the petitioner but rather pointed towards his active participation in the conspiracy. Therefore, no exceptional or extraordinary ground warranting the exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail was made out. The petition seeking pre-arrest bail was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered in Gurugram is without jurisdiction, considering the petitioner's employment agreement stipulated territorial jurisdiction of Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, and he was asked to join duties at the Noida Plant? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner can be held liable for alleged misappropriation or irregularities, given his role was limited to raising purchase orders upon demand from company departments, and he had no role in subsequent handling, utilization, or accounting of materials, especially when materials were recorded as received before payment? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the mere existence of templates or electronic documents in the petitioner's laptop constitutes evidence of preparation, fabrication, or forgery of invoices, particularly in the absence of conclusive forensic opinion? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the FIR was registered without jurisdiction. He argued that his role was confined to raising purchase orders and he was not involved in subsequent processes or payments. He also argued that the mere presence of templates on his laptop did not prove forgery, and a forensic report was still awaited. He further submitted that he had joined the investigation, custodial interrogation was not required, and he had deep roots in society, posing no flight risk. He also alleged pressure to deposit money with an assurance of quashing the FIR, which was not honored. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (State of Haryana and complainant) argued that the Head Office of the company was in Gurugram, and financial control vested there, establishing a part of the cause of action. They also contended that the crime involved meticulous planning and design, negating any presumption in favor of anticipatory bail. Further, a detailed reply filed by the complainant substantially addressed the court's earlier queries, prima facie establishing the petitioner's involvement and participation in the offense.