Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Systematic Siphoning of Funds, Fraud, and Forgery Prima Facie Established - High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Rs. 2.02 Crore Mobile Accessories Fraud Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to Ashok Kumar Sahni and Supriya Nakra, implicated in a fraud involving the misappropriation of Rs. 2.02 crores meant for purchasing mobile phone accessories. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi concluded that the systematic siphoning of funds, along with the roles played by the accused within their company, clearly established a prima facie case of criminal conduct, thus denying the relief sought.

Legal Framework and Accusations: The applications for anticipatory bail arose from an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code at the Industrial Area Police Station, Bhiwani. The complaints detailed that M/s MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd., directed by the accused, failed to supply goods despite receiving an advance payment of Rs. 2.02 crores.

Facts and Issues: The prosecution’s case pivots on substantial financial misappropriations revealed through a detailed investigation into several bank accounts linked to the accused and their associates. Both Sahni and Nakra were pinpointed as key operatives in redirecting funds for personal and associated use, leveraging their positions within the company.

Role of Directors and Control Over Operations: Evidence showed Sahni, though not involved in day-to-day operations, had substantial influence over the company’s financial transactions. Nakra, on the other hand, was deeply involved as the authorized signatory and overseer of administrative functions.

Criminal Antecedents and Influence on Ongoing Investigation: The court highlighted that both petitioners had previous criminal records with similar charges, reinforcing the decision against the grant of bail.

Misdirection of Funds: Transaction records clearly indicated deliberate misdirection of funds into accounts controlled by the accused, disrupting the chain of commerce and evidencing forgery and fraud.

Potential Threat to Witnesses and Evidence: Given the gravity of the accusations and their capacity to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, the court underscored the necessity to deny anticipatory bail.

Decision: Citing systematic fraud and the potential to undermine the investigative process, Justice Bedi dismissed the anticipatory bail applications of Ashok Kumar Sahni and Supriya Nakra, underlining the severity of the allegations against them.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2024

Ashok Kumar Sahni vs State of Haryana and Supriya Nakra vs State of Haryana

Similar News