After 1.5 Years In Custody, Delhi HC Denies Bail To NBFC Employee Accused Of Siphoning ₹3.23 Crore, Citing Banking Trail

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case registered under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The complainant, an NBFC, alleged that the petitioner, its Assistant Manager (Operations), used his access to its loan-management system to facilitate fraudulent disbursements and divert company funds.

The prosecution alleged that at least 69 transactions, totalling approximately ₹3.23 crore, were routed to accounts linked to the petitioner and a co-accused.

The police filed an initial chargesheet and a supplementary chargesheet; the criminal case was pending at the stage of framing of charges.

The petitioner relied, among other things, on the completion of investigation, lack of criminal antecedents, documentary nature of the evidence and prolonged custody.

The State opposed bail, citing the alleged banking trail, digital evidence and unrecovered funds.

Section 483 BNSS governed the application for regular bail.

In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and substantial loss of public funds require a distinct and serious approach to bail; relevant considerations include the accusations, supporting evidence, likely punishment, the accused’s circumstances, risk of non-appearance or witness tampering, and public interest.

Relying on Centrum Financial Services Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 13 SCC 286, the Court reiterated that bail decisions must engage with the alleged modus operandi and investigative material, alongside factors such as the seriousness of the offence, evidence, risk of flight or tampering, and the impact of release.

The Court considered the prosecution’s account of the alleged diversion of funds and noted that the petitioner’s role was said to be supported by banking-trail analysis, beneficiary-account mapping, digital and electronic evidence, forged operational emails, transaction chronology, witness statements and analysis of his operational access.

It also noted the State’s submission that funds routed through the co-accused’s account were subsequently returned to the petitioner’s account, and that the money remained unrecovered.

Applying the cited principles on economic offences, the Court found that the gravity of the allegations and the collected material outweighed the petitioner’s reliance on prolonged custody and the completion of investigation.

It clarified that its observations were not an expression on the merits of the case.