Delhi High Court
Atul Gupta vs State on 20 March, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 20, 2019
+ BAIL. APPLN. 541/2019
ATUL GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rajiv Mohan,
Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Mr. M.A.
Karthik, Ms. Hiralal Gupta &
Ms. Smriti Suresh, Advocates
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI B. Singh.
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vineet Arora &
Mr. Sumer, Advocates for
Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 72/2017, under Sections
409/420/468/471/120-B/34 IPC, registered at Economic Offences Wing
(EOW), New Delhi while claiming that the case of petitioner is on better
footing than the case of co-accused Vivek Gulati, who has been already
granted regular bail by trial court vide order of 30th November, 2018.
Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits petitioner was
working as Vice President (Sales & Marketing) from the year 2007 till
2016 and that it is evidence from the reply filed by respondent to the pre-
arrest bail application before the court below that Initiator for approval of
invoices/ bills is the Head of Department and then, it is processed through
the Japanese Functional Head and then it goes to petitioner, who is the
Initiation Functional Head and then, the said invoice/ bill is put up before
the Finance Head i.e. the Managing Director and thereafter, the bills are
paid to the concerned party i.e. MK/s Brand Serve.
It is submitted by learned senior counsel for petitioner that apart
from the disclosure statement of co-accused Vivek Gulati, there is no
material with the prosecution to show that co-accused Vivek Gulati had
delivered the huge junk of cash to petitioner and that the so-called cash
purportedly delivered to petitioner finds mentioned in the bank accounts
of petitioner's family members/ relatives. Learned senior counsel for
petitioner vehemently assails the charge-sheet while submitting that in the
bank account of petitioner's daughter-Arushi Gupta, sum of ₹2,00,000/-
was deposited on 27th January, 2015 and that there is no entry of 27th
January, 2015 of petitioner's daughter having withdrawn ₹2,00,000/-
from the said bank account. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits
that petitioner is ready to join investigation as and when directed and so,
on parity basis, petitioner deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail.
On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State submits that custodial interrogation of petitioner is
required to trace out the money trail. It is submitted that petitioner was
instrumental in the pilfering of ₹8.00 crores from the complainant-
company. It is pointed out that the cash withdrawal of ₹54.19 crores by
petitioner has been shifted by him with the help of his family members
and relatives and so, his custodial interrogation is required.
Learned senior counsel for complainant strongly opposes this
application by submitting that the case of petitioner cannot be considered
at par with the case of Vivek Gulati, who has been granted regular bail.
Learned senior counsel for complainant points out that the embezzlement
to the tune of ₹54.19 crores is done by petitioner and co-accused Vivek
Gulati during interrogation has given the details of amount withdrawn by
him from the bank while clarifying that the said amount was distributed
to various parties at the instance of petitioner. It is also pointed out by
learned senior counsel for complainant that there are e-mails and whats-
app communication between petitioner and co-accused Vivek Gulati in
this regard. So, it is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for respondent-State and senior counsel for complainant that this
application deserves rejection.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR of this case and copy of final
report, I find that petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused Vivek
Gulati, as the co-accused Vivek Gulati was the beneficiary of pilferage of
funds of M/s Suzuki Motor Cycle India Private Limited. The modus
operandi adopted by petitioner for commission of offence in question
certainly establishes petitioner's complicity in the commission of offence
in question, as there is material on record to indicate that petitioner had
been asking for various favours including money and embezzlement
attributable to petitioner is said to be more than ₹10 crores and so, for
effective investigation, petitioner's custodial interrogation is required.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find it to be fit
case for grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner. This application is
accordingly dismissed, while not commenting on the merits of the case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2019
r
