Former Realty Executive Accused Of Routing Investors’ Project Funds Through Personal Account Denied Anticipatory Bail By P&H HC

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The complainants alleged that, while serving as Vice-President (Sales & Strategy) at TS Realtech Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner induced them to invest in the company’s projects and that investment funds were received in his personal account.

The petitioner maintained that he acted on company instructions, that the dispute was commercial, and that he was falsely implicated; the State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.

The Sessions Court had rejected his anticipatory-bail application.

The High Court dismissed the petition.

Section 482 BNSS provides for anticipatory bail.

In deciding such an application, the Court must balance individual liberty against societal interests and consider the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the accused’s attributed role, and the needs of a fair investigation.

The Court observed that economic offences may warrant particular scrutiny because of their calculated and potentially concealed character, especially where specific material prima facie connects an accused to the alleged transactions.

Relying on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Court noted that custodial interrogation may be more effective than questioning a suspect protected by pre-arrest bail.

The Court considered the allegations that the petitioner was a senior company employee when the investments were made and that funds were routed through his personal bank account.

It also noted his admission that the account was used as a conduit, while observing that he had not produced the alleged WhatsApp instructions supporting his account of acting on company directions.

The Court treated the alleged direct connection to the transactions, the petitioner’s admitted involvement in another FIR, and the asserted need to trace funds and investigate other participants as relevant to the bail assessment.

It concluded that custodial interrogation was required to facilitate an effective investigation.

It dismissed the petition, while clarifying that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or investigation.