The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that granted anticipatory bail to an accused alleged to have embezzled over Rs. 3 crores. The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, held that the High Court’s decision was “vitiated by non-consideration of essential facts” and failed to take into account the status report filed by the investigating agency which highlighted the necessity of custodial interrogation.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant, Salil Mahajan, challenging the order dated April 2, 2025, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court had granted pre-arrest bail to the accused, Avinash Kumar, in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 316(4), 344, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Apex Court observed that the High Court took a “mechanical route” in granting relief and directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from an FIR lodged on November 25, 2024, by the Appellant, a Chartered Accountant for Amandeep Healthcare Private Limited. The accused, Avinash Kumar, was employed as a Senior Accountant at Amandeep Hospital. The prosecution alleged that during an internal investigation, it was discovered that the accused had embezzled over Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Three Crores) from various accounts of the hospital units and transferred them to accounts belonging to himself and his family members.
The accused initially sought anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which was rejected on February 21, 2025. Subsequently, he approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which granted him bail vide the impugned order. A chargesheet in the matter was filed on May 22, 2025.
Submissions of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the Appellant-complainant argued that the High Court’s order suffered from “non-application of mind” and failed to consider the critical need for custodial interrogation. The State supported this stance, submitting that custodial interrogation was necessary given the facts of the case.
Conversely, the counsel for the accused contended that since the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had already been filed, custodial interrogation was “no longer warranted.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court referred to the legal principles governing appeals against the grant of bail, citing its recent decision in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 SCC Online SC 1690). The Court reiterated that an “order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors” and can be entertained by a superior court on grounds including perversity and failure to consider relevant factors.
The Bench also relied on Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, observing that bail can be revoked where the court has “ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable.”
In examining the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had observed that “there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration at this stage” and that the accused had returned half the embezzled amount. However, the Apex Court found that this reasoning “completely disregards the status report of the investigation.”
The status report had categorically stated:
“The present petitioner Avinash Kumar has embezelled more than Rs. 2.7 crores from the accounts of Amandeep Hospital and he is on a run. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is utmost required for fair and proper investigation of the case as well as to recover the embezelled amount and in order to identify other persons who are involved with him in commission of the crime.”
The Supreme Court observed that while the High Court recorded the contents of this report, it made “no reference to the contents thereof in its reasoning” and failed to explain why the allegation that the accused was “on the run” should be ignored. The Bench termed the High Court’s approach as a “mechanical route in releasing the accused under the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.”
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment was liable to be set aside due to the non-consideration of essential facts, specifically the investigating agency’s report regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation to recover the remaining amount and identify accomplices.
The Court ordered:
- The appeal is allowed, and the High Court’s order dated April 2, 2025, is set aside.
- The accused is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks of the judgment.
- The accused is at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by these observations.
Case Information
- Case Title: Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar & Anr.
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 5313 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7275 of 2025)
- Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
