Car Pavillion PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Facts

Car Pavillion Pvt. Ltd. (CPPL), a company dealing in used cars, filed a complaint alleging that Rs. 4 crores were illegally transferred from its ICICI Bank account to M/s Bytie Enterprises, a sole proprietorship of Shivam Singh. CPPL's E-net banking facility, which requires an Inputter-Authorizer concept with user credentials and digital certificates, was allegedly used by "Secondary Accused" employees of CPPL. The transfers occurred on April 8, 2021, in 16 transactions of Rs. 25 lacs each. CPPL discovered the unauthorized transfer on April 26, 2021, during a fortnightly reconciliation. The company requested ICICI Bank to reverse the transaction and provide beneficiary details and IP addresses. The bank informed CPPL that the funds were transferred to two other accounts. This petition was filed by CPPL under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No. 2, Vipul Natwarlal Dholakia, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, on February 10, 2023, in FIR No. 27 dated May 8, 2021, under Sections 66, 66-D of the IT Act and Section 420 of the IPC.

Held

The Court held that the order dated February 10, 2023, granting regular bail to respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, was neither improper nor arbitrary. The Court found no fundamental error in the lower court's discretion and no other material factor that would justify annulling the bail. The investigation concerning respondent No. 2 was complete, and the challan had been presented. The Court acknowledged that the complicity of respondent No. 2 would be decided during the trial based on the evidence presented. Regarding the petitioner's apprehension about respondent No. 2 absconding or influencing witnesses, the Court stated that the prosecution could approach the trial court for cancellation of bail if such conduct occurred. The Court also imposed additional conditions to ensure respondent No. 2's appearance during the trial, including appearing on each hearing date, not leaving the country without permission, informing the SHO of his address and changes thereof, keeping his mobile location on, appearing before the police station quarterly, and not inducing or threatening witnesses. A Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of Rs. 1 lac was also to be furnished. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated February 10, 2023, granting regular bail to respondent No. 2, Vipul Natwarlal Dholakia, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, is improper or arbitrary, warranting cancellation under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that respondent No. 2's role has not been fully unearthed and that he is the sole link between Ravi Thakkar and Anant Singh. They expressed apprehension that respondent No. 2 might abscond or influence witnesses, thereby jeopardizing the trial. The petitioner sought to annul the bail granted by the lower court. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent's counsel argued that the investigation regarding respondent No. 2 is complete, and the challan has been presented. Respondent No. 2 had already been in custody for approximately 40 days before being granted bail. They contended that the falsity of the respondent's stand would be determined during the trial. Furthermore, they submitted that if any new circumstances or evidence emerge, the respondent can be confronted with them, but this alone should not lead to the cancellation of bail. The respondent also assured that he would not misuse the bail and would cooperate with the trial.