Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To EEE MD In ₹9.31 Crore BESCOM Payment Diversion Case
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused anticipatory bail to Aswath Reddy N, Managing Director of Electrical Energy Equipments India Pvt Ltd (EEE), in a case involving allegations that he induced a company to supply materials worth about ₹9.31 crore.
The complainant alleged that the supplies were made on the assurance that payments from Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd (BESCOM) would be routed through an Escrow Account that was never operationalised.
Justice Madhu Jain held that BESCOM had informed investigators that no payment was ever released to any Escrow Account. The electricity utility also stated that no invoices of EEE were pending consideration and that no outstanding amount remained payable by it.
“Moreover, as per the reply received from BESCOM, no payment was ever released to any Escrow Account, no invoices of EEE are presently pending consideration and no outstanding amount remains payable by BESCOM. Prima facie, these facts do not support the stand taken by the applicant before this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail at this stage.”, the court observed.
The case arose from FIR dated September 8, 2025 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. The complainant Visual Technologies India Pvt Ltd, alleged that EEE and its Managing Director induced it to supply materials for BESCOM projects under a Memorandum of Understanding dated August 8, 2024.
VTI claimed that despite representations that project payments would be routed through an Escrow Account, EEE diverted payments to another account and fabricated documents relating to the transaction.
The Court noted that BESCOM had required EEE to complete formalities for opening the Escrow Account, which prima facie was not done and therefore no payment could have been routed through it.
It also observed that while the MoU conferred Delhi jurisdiction, the Purchase Order relied upon by the applicant contained a Bengaluru jurisdiction clause, raising concerns about the document's authenticity.
"Though, at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to conclusively determine whether the Purchase Order relied upon byeither side is genuine or not. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the MoU executed between the parties specifically provides for Delhi jurisdiction, whereas the Purchase Order relied upon by the applicant contains a jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction upon Courts at Bengaluru. This aspect, coupled with the serious dispute regarding the authenticity of the Purchase Order can't be overlooked by the Court.”
Relying on recent Supreme Court decisions concerning anticipatory bail in economic offences, the Court said that such relief is an extraordinary remedy and that the existence of a civil dispute does not dilute allegations of fraud or cheating where criminal ingredients are prima facie made out.
Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
For Petitioner: Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate, Advocates Rose Verma, Shreehari Kutsa, Kiran Naidu
For Respondent: Mukesh Kumar, APP, Rajeev Sharma, Senior Advocate, Advocates Shilpa Goel, Ramchandra Nehra, Anuj Handa, Shruti Sharma, Shreya Sharma, Nishant Kandpal, Shubham Pandey, Aman Kumar Singh, Arunima Singh, Vishwakarma