Harsh Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

These petitions were filed by Harsh Singh and Chandra Vardhan Jain, accused in FIR No. 305 dated 20.12.2024, registered under Sections 120-B, 408, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurugram. The case involves alleged fraud of approximately Rs. 12.767 crores against Hitachi Astemo Gurugram Powertrain Systems Pvt. Ltd. The prosecution alleges that two employees of the company, Rohit Naithani and Vineet Jha, in connivance with sham vendors, fabricated purchase requests, purchase orders, clearance forms, and forged signatures. They allegedly planted fake invoices into the SAP system, leading to funds being released to non-existent vendors for goods or services never supplied. Forensic investigation revealed 376 fake invoices and 51 forged purchase orders between January 2023 and March 2024. The petitioners are accused under Section 120-B IPC, with allegations that amounts were transferred to their accounts by the main accused. The petitioners have been in custody since September and October 2025, respectively. A chargesheet has been filed, and the offences are triable by a Magistrate.

Held

The Court allowed the petitions and ordered the release of the petitioners on regular bail. The Court considered the nature of allegations, the petitioners' clean criminal antecedents, and the fact that the investigation did not reflect the petitioners forging documents, with them being nominated as accused primarily under Section 120-B IPC. The Court also noted that it was a magisterial trial and the petitioners had already undergone over 5 months of actual custody. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court would decide the case based on the available material. The petitioners were directed to furnish requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and were cautioned against threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, accused under Section 120-B IPC, have made out a case for grant of regular bail, considering their period of custody, clean criminal antecedents, and the fact that the investigation does not directly implicate them in forging documents, in light of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contend they are nominated as accused solely under Section 120-B IPC. They were not employees of the company and the investigation does not show them forging specific documents to facilitate money transfers. They argue that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, they have no criminal antecedents, and have undergone over 5 months of actual custody. With 29 prosecution witnesses cited and none examined, the trial is expected to be lengthy. Revenue/State's arguments: The State and complainant's counsel do not dispute the facts but vehemently contend that the petitioners received amounts in their accounts and actively colluded with other accused in submitting forged invoices. However, they do not dispute that it is a magisterial trial, evidence recording has not commenced, and a co-accused has been granted interim bail.