Rohit Naithani vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Rohit Naithani, an Executive in Accounts at M/s Hitachi Astemo Gurugram Powertrain Systems Pvt. Ltd., sought regular bail. The prosecution alleges a conspiracy involving Naithani and a Senior Executive, Vineet Jha, with sham vendors, defrauding the company of approximately ₹12.767 crores between January 2023 and March 2024. The alleged modus operandi involved fabricating purchase requests, purchase orders, and invoices, and misusing the journal voucher booking method. Forensic investigation revealed 376 fake invoices and 51 forged purchase orders. Vendors were found to be non-existent, with common phone numbers and GST irregularities. Kickbacks were allegedly routed back to the employees. The petitioner was arrested on 28.08.2025 and has been in custody for over 8 months.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court considered the period of actual custody undergone by the petitioner (over 8 months), his clean antecedents, and the stage of the trial where none of the 26 prosecution witnesses had been examined. It was also noted that all offences were triable by a Magistrate and the conclusion of the trial was likely to take a considerable time. The Court emphasized that these observations were not an expression on the merits of the case and the trial court would decide based on the available material. The petitioner was ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, with a clear direction not to threaten or influence any prosecution witness.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, an Executive (Accounts), who claims to perform only clerical functions under senior officers and lacks authority to approve purchases or verify invoices, is entitled to regular bail given his alleged involvement in a fraud of approximately ₹12.767 crores? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner is a junior employee performing only accounting functions under direction, without approval authority. He has undergone over 8 months of custody, has clean antecedents, and all offences are triable by a Magistrate. With 26 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined, continued incarceration is not in the larger interest. Revenue/State's arguments: The petitioner was actively involved and colluded with co-accused. He registered firms used as vendors, into which approximately ₹4.20 crores were siphoned off into accounts operated by him or his relatives. Payments were directed to these companies, withdrawn by the petitioner, and proceeds shared. His claim of merely discharging clerical functions is not credible, and his active involvement is established.