The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected the regular bail plea of an accountant accused of causing a wrongful loss of ₹1.19 crore to his employer through transactions allegedly based on fake invoices and purported GST refund payments.
The bench of Justice Manisha Batra considered the seriousness of the allegations, the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and the risk that the accused could abscond again. The apprehension of the accused fleeing was not unfounded in view of his earlier conduct. The Court also noted that the trial had commenced and there was nothing on record to suggest any undue delay in its conclusion.
BUY NOW: Legal & Taxation Combo – 4 Premium E-Magazines – September 2026
The case arose from a complaint filed against the accused who had been employed as an accountant with the company since 2008.
The complainant alleged that, during his visit to India in 2022, the accountant represented that he had entered into several business transactions with different firms and companies. On the pretext of making GST refund payments to those entities, he allegedly obtained the complainant’s signatures on several cheques.
One of the transactions involved a purchase invoice for ₹1 crore purportedly issued by M/s Luthra & Company. On the strength of that invoice, ₹18,00,020 was allegedly paid by the complainant’s company through RTGS as a GST refund.
The complainant subsequently learnt that Luthra & Company had lodged a complaint against its agents concerning the preparation of fake invoices in the name of his company. It was further alleged that the ₹18,00,020 initially transferred to Luthra & Company was subsequently diverted to Krishna Enterprises, in connivance with the accountant and an employee of Luthra & Company, and immediately withdrawn.
The complaint alleged that a total of ₹1,19,35,880 had been transferred from the company through RTGS on the basis of fake invoices, with the involvement of the accountant, certain bank officials and other accomplices. These allegations formed the background to the criminal proceedings; the bail order did not determine their truth.
FIR No. 0077 was registered on June 2, 2023, at Sarabha Nagar Police Station, Ludhiana, under Sections 408, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Sections 467, 468 and 471, concerning forgery and the use of forged documents, were added later.
The judgment recorded that the accused could not initially be arrested and proceedings to declare him a proclaimed offender were initiated. A Look Out Circular was also issued. He was arrested at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi, on November 4, 2025.
After the investigation concerning him was completed, he approached the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The defence argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and had not benefited from the disputed transactions, as no money had been transferred to his personal bank account.
His counsel submitted that he had stopped working as the complainant’s accountant before the alleged transactions in 2022. It was also contended that he had departed for the United States on April 27, 2021, and thereafter neither worked for the complainant nor remained associated with him.
The defence relied on the completion of the investigation, his clean antecedents and the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused Gursewak Singh. It argued that the offences were triable by a Magistrate, that the trial would take considerable time and that continued detention would serve no useful purpose.
The State, assisted by the complainant’s counsel, opposed bail. It alleged that the accused had exploited his position as an employee to procure payments through fake invoices and documents. It also relied on his alleged avoidance of the investigation and expressed concern that he might flee again if released.
The High Court observed that the accusations involved an alleged conspiracy causing substantial wrongful loss, along with breach of trust, forgery and the use of forged documents. It specifically noted that Section 467 of the IPC carries punishment extending to life imprisonment.
The Court also recorded that the petitioner had been an absconder. In those circumstances, it found that the apprehension of his absconding again could not be treated as unfounded at that stage.
On the defence’s argument concerning the likely duration of proceedings, the Court noted that the trial had already commenced and that the record did not indicate any undue delay in its conclusion.
Explaining the approach to bail, the Court stated that the discretion must be exercised on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Relevant considerations include the nature of the accusations, the severity of the possible punishment and the evidence supporting the allegations. Reasonable concerns about interference with evidence or threats to witnesses, as well as the frivolity of the prosecution, must also be considered.
The Court dismissed the petition. It expressly clarified that its observations should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the criminal case.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
