ATUL GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits petitioner was working as Vice President (Sales and 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.

(3.) 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 Rs. 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was deposited on 27th January, 2015 and that there is no entry of 27th January, 2015 of petitioner's daughter having withdrawn Rs. 2,00,000/- from the said bank account.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.