₹7 Crore Trading Loss Allegedly Concealed Through Fabricated Statements; Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail, Says Custodial Interrogation Needed to Trace Money Trail
Case Name: Shivam Kumar v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 15 July 2026
Citation: CRM-M-36889-2026
Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted where the allegations disclose a serious economic offence involving manipulation of financial records, fabrication of account statements and concealment of substantial trading losses. The Court observed that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the complete money trail, determine the ultimate destination and utilisation of the allegedly siphoned funds, uncover the alleged modus operandi, identify the involvement of other persons and verify the authenticity of documentary and electronic evidence. The Court further held that pre-arrest protection would impede a fair, effective and comprehensive investigation.
Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 316(4), 318(4), 336(2) and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was employed as a Computer Operator with M/s Global Petrochem and was entrusted with operating online trading platforms, executing trades on the proprietor’s instructions and maintaining the confidentiality and accuracy of trading data, credentials and financial records.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner misused his access to the company’s computer and trading systems, manipulated financial data and furnished fabricated account statements that concealed the true financial position of the business. The investigation allegedly revealed a discrepancy of ₹39,69,515 between a statement furnished by the petitioner and the authentic statement obtained from the broker. It was alleged that the credit balance had been artificially inflated by ₹36,69,515.
The prosecution further alleged that the petitioner showed a debit or trading loss of approximately ₹1.82 crore, whereas the official broker ledger reflected an actual loss of approximately ₹8.82 crore. On that basis, the petitioner was accused of suppressing trading losses of nearly ₹7 crore and misleading the management through fabricated statements. An unauthorised transaction exceeding ₹2.95 crore was also allegedly omitted from the records prepared by him, despite being reflected in the brokerage company’s official records.
The petitioner denied the allegations and contended that he had neither unrestricted access to confidential financial data nor authority to execute investments independently. He argued that all transactions required OTP authentication, which remained exclusively available with the proprietor. He also asserted that the Accounts Manager, rather than the petitioner, was responsible for maintaining the books and financial records, and that the FIR had been lodged to shift responsibility for investment losses arising from market fluctuations.
The High Court declined to accept these submissions as grounds for anticipatory bail at the investigation stage. It noted that the status report attributed specific operational and confidentiality-related duties to the petitioner and disclosed substantial discrepancies between the statements allegedly prepared by him and the official records obtained from the brokerage companies.
Considering the scale and nature of the alleged financial manipulation, the Court held that custodial interrogation was indispensable for reconstructing the transactions, tracing the alleged diversion or utilisation of funds, examining electronic and documentary evidence and determining whether other persons were involved. It concluded that granting pre-arrest bail would seriously obstruct the investigation.
Decision: The anticipatory bail petition was dismissed. The High Court held that the allegations involved serious economic offences and large-scale manipulation of financial and trading records, requiring custodial interrogation and an unfettered investigation. The Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting the protection of anticipatory bail.