Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Grant of Anticipatory Bail in Rs. 3 Crore Embezzlement Case, Directs Surrender

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal against an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which had enlarged the accused on anticipatory bail in connection with allegations of embezzlement exceeding Rs. 3 crore. The appeal challenged the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in respect of FIR No. 187 registered at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar under Sections 316(4), 344 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 2 April 2025 and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. The Court held that the High Court had failed to apply its mind to relevant material, in particular the status report of the investigation, and had taken a “mechanical route” in releasing the accused on the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The impugned order, while explicitly recording the contents of this report, makes no reference to the contents thereof in its reasoning. Pertinently, there is no reference as to why his alleged conduct of being on the run ought to be ignored. In our view, the Court erred by not taking this relevant status report into consideration. Such failure cannot be sustained. Moreover, the Court vide the impugned order appears to be have taken a mechanical route in releasing the accused under the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. No consideration was made to the merits of the allegations against him or his conduct, as alleged by the investigating agencies.” The Court clarified that these observations were confined to the order granting anticipatory bail and were not observations on the merits of the prosecution case. The accused was permitted to apply for regular bail before the appropriate court, to be considered on its own merits.

Background The dispute arose from an FIR lodged on 25 November 2024 by the complainant, the registered chartered accountant of Amandeep Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., alleging that the accused, a senior accountant at Amandeep Hospital, had misappropriated funds exceeding Rs. 3,00,00,000 by transferring amounts from various hospital units into accounts belonging to him and family members. An internal probe revealed irregularities in the accounts of Amandeep Nursing College and the accused did not report to work when called for an explanation. The accused sought anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court on 22 January 2025, which was rejected on 21 February 2025. The accused then obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court, which recorded that “there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration at this stage” and noted that “there is a return of half of the embezzled amount and petitioner is willing to declare all his assets and bank details, as such, he is entitled to bail.”

The investigating agency filed a status report stating that the accused had embezzled over Rs. 2.7 crores and was “on a run,” and that “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 applied established principles governing interference with orders granting bail, as reiterated in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, observing that an appeal against grant of bail may be entertained on grounds such as perversity, illegality or non-consideration of relevant factors. Finding that the High Court omitted to consider the investigation’s status report and the accused’s alleged conduct, the Court concluded that the bail order was legally untenable and interfered with it. The chargesheet had been filed on 22 May 2025. The appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, the accused was directed to surrender within two weeks, liberty was granted to apply for regular bail, and pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5313 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7275 of 2025) Case Title: Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment