Anticipatory bail High Court can not overlook investigation status highlighting the gravity and need for custodial interrogation

Supreme Court Overturns High Court's Anticipatory Bail Order for Embezzlement Accused Apex Court Finds High Court's Decision Flawed for Ignoring Key Evidence and Necessity of Custodial Interrogation

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the anticipatory bail granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to Avinash Kumar, an accused in a major embezzlement case involving over Rs. 3 crores. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra in Criminal Appeal No. 5313 of 2025, arising from a Special Leave Petition.

The case revolves around allegations of financial misconduct by Avinash Kumar, who was a Senior Accountant at Amandeep Hospital, GT Road. The complainant, Salil Mahajan, a Chartered Accountant associated with the hospital, filed an FIR after discovering irregularities in the accounts, leading to the revelation that Kumar had allegedly siphoned funds into personal and family accounts.

The High Court had previously granted anticipatory bail to Kumar under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, citing insufficient justification for custodial interrogation. However, the Supreme Court found the High Court's order lacking due diligence and application of mind, particularly highlighting the oversight of a crucial investigation status report. This report underscored the gravity of the allegations, the accused's absconding status, and the necessity of custodial interrogation to recover the embezzled funds and uncover further criminal involvement.

Citing precedents from cases like Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted mechanically without assessing the merits and severity of the allegations. The Apex Court emphasized that the High Court failed to consider relevant factors, rendering its decision unsustainable.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing Avinash Kumar to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, and clarified that he may seek regular bail, which should be adjudicated independently of the Supreme Court's observations in this judgment. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's responsibility to ensure that bail decisions are made with due consideration of all relevant factors, particularly in cases involving serious allegations and potential flight risk.

Bottom Line:

Anticipatory bail granted by High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court as it was vitiated by non-consideration of relevant facts, such as the accused being on the run, the need for custodial interrogation, and the gravity of the offence.

Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 316(4), 344, 61(2)

Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2819364