Chander Shekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 27.07.2019 in Bail Application No.2278/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, MACT, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in FIR No.46/18, under Sections 170/420/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, PS: Crime Branch, Delhi, whereby the Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
(2.) The case of the prosecution, as noted by the Trial Court, is as under: "This case has been registered by the police on 22.02.2018 on the basis of a written complaint dated 20.02.2018 given to the police by one Anil Kumar, Administrative Officer of Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA), Govt. of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, IMT Manesar, Haryana, on allegation that a fake purchase order dated 15.01.2018 was placed on their behalf with Reliance Retail Ltd. (RIL) for procurement of certain electronic items from RIL costing approx. Rs.11 lacs. The said order is alleged to have been placed by the present applicant in her capacity of Consultant, Procurement, IICA, MCA, Govt. of India using the signatures of a former Director General and CEO of the said Institute on his letter head and the rubber stamp, GST certificate as well as PAN card of the Institute. It is also alleged that there has been some conversation between the above applicant and RIL in connection with the above said transaction and further some telephonic conversations between a lady representing herself to be Ms. Runa Pasricha, i.e. the applicant, and the Business Manager of RIL. The address for delivery of the above electronic items was given to be of a house in Munirka Vihar, New Delhi. However, after having some suspicion, the business head of RIL had visited the office of above Institute to find out the truth about the above purchase order as it contained a term of 15 days credit, but on visiting the said office, it was revealed that the above purchase order was fake and Ms. Runa Pasricha was though earlier working as a Consultant with the said Institute, but she had already left the Institute and no such purchase order was placed on behalf of the Institute."
(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a delay of almost one month in the lodging of the FIR, however, neither the complainant nor the police official gave any reason for the delay in registration of the FIR. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, though, she was working as a Consultant with the complainant, yet she has nothing to do with the purchase order as she left the job on 18.2.2016, much prior to the placing of the said order. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge also appreciated that the petitioner was having nothing in her possession, for the recovery whereof the custody of the petitioner may be required by the respondent. The petitioner is a young lady living separately from her husband. Some litigation is pending between them and due to this the husband of the petitioner misused her e-mail IDs to get her falsely implicated in the case. Even the SIM card and IP addresses used in commission of the said offences belong to her husband and she has been falsely implicated in the present case.;