1. Misappropriation of funds by an employee — FIR under Sections 316(4), 344, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Appeal against grant of anticipatory bail. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2012
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Salil Mahajan – Appellant
Vs.
Avinash Kumar & Anr. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5313 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7275 of 2025)
Decided On : 08-12-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sameer Kumar, AOR Ms. Abha Sharma, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sameer Kumar, AOR Ms. Abha Sharma, AOR
The process for granting anticipatory bail must reflect careful consideration of all relevant facts and the potential impact on the investigation.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Criminal Appeal - Anticipatory bail was granted by High Court to the accused for embezzling over Rs. 3 crores, however, the Supreme Court found the order suffered from non-application of mind regarding custodial interrogation, failing to consider the necessity for further investigation. (Paras 2, 6-12)
(B) Bail - Legal principles - An appeal against grant of bail differs from an application for cancellation; it must not involve a detailed analysis of evidence and should reflect an assessment of relevant factors such as gravity of the offense. (Paras 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
The complainant accused the respondent of misappropriating significant funds while working at Amandeep Healthcare; an FIR was filed detailing the accused's actions and the need for custodial interrogation was highlighted.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside due to the lack of consideration for relevant status report, and the necessity for custodial interrogation was ruled essential for the investigation.
Issues: The court examined whether the High Court's judgment on the grant of bail disregarded material facts necessary for a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that failure to consider essential facts regarding the accused’s continued embezzlement and conduct of being on the run rendered the High Court’s decision untenable.
Result: Appeal allowed; the High Court's bail order is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Complainant and State argue custodial interrogation is necessary and order lacks application of mind — Accused contends custodial interrogation is unwarranted as investigation is complete. (Para 6 )
3. High Court ignored the investigation status report and the accused's conduct of being on the run, resulting in a mechanical grant of extraordinary relief. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. A bail order is legally untenable if the court considers irrelevant factors or ignores relevant material, including the gravity of the offence and the accused's conduct. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order granting anticipatory bail set aside — Accused directed to surrender and apply for regular bail. (Para 13 , 15 )
6. What is the legal distinction between an appeal against the grant of bail and an application for cancellation of bail?
An appeal against the grant of bail tests the legality of the order based on perversity, illegality, or inconsistency with law. Conversely, an application for cancellation of bail may consider the conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail, which is generally not considered in an appeal against the grant. (Para 7 )
7. Under what circumstances can a superior court interfere with an order granting anticipatory bail?
A superior court may interfere to prevent a miscarriage of justice if the lower court considered irrelevant factors, ignored relevant material, or failed to consider the gravity of the offence, the accused's conduct, and the potential to influence witnesses or flee from justice. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. Does the filing of a chargesheet automatically render a bail order valid even if essential facts were ignored during the grant?
No. Even if the filing of a chargesheet suggests that custodial interrogation may no longer be required, a judgment granting bail can still be set aside if it was vitiated by the non-consideration of essential facts at the time the order was passed. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 2nd April 2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-13103-2025 whereby Respondent No. 1, accused-Avinash Kumar 1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’], came to be enlarged on bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with the subject FIR No. 187 registered at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar under Sections 316 (4), 344, 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Appellant 2[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’] lodged an FIR dated 25th November 2024 against the accused and his family members for allegedly misappropriating more than Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. As per the FIR, the complainant was the registered Chartered Accountant for Amandeep Healthcare Private Limited, while the accused was working as a Senior Accountant at Amandeep Hospital, GT Road. It has been stated therein that the accused was responsible for transferring amounts from the various Units of Amandeep Hospital, with due permission of the higher management. During the course of work, the management discovered irregularities in the accounts of Amandeep Nursing College. An explanation was called for from the accused; however, he did not report to work. After an internal investigation, it was discovered that the accused had embezzled over Rs. 3 crores from various accounts, to accounts belonging to him and his family members. The complainant made specific allegations as to the transfer of money from the various units of Amandeep Healthcare to the accused.
4. On 22nd January 2025, the accused sought anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. This application came to be rejected vide order dated 21st February 2025 in Case No. BA/470/2025. Aggrieved thereof, the accused moved an application for the same relief before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh as CRM-M-13103/2025. It is also a matter of record that chargesheet came to be filed against the accused persons on 22nd May 2025.
5. We have heard the parties at length and perused the written submissions filed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that the High Court has erroneously granted bail to the accused. The significant grounds of challenge taken are that the order suffers from non-application of mind and that the Court below did not take into consideration the need for custodial interrogation of the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the State has lent support to the case of the complainant and has submitted that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary, in the attending facts. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has contended that since the investigation has been completed, his custodial interrogation is no longer warranted.
7. At the outset, it is well settled by this Court that an appeal against the grant of bail and an application seeking cancellation of bail are on different footing. The grounds for testing the legality of an order granting bail are well settled. Recently, in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC Online SC 1690 this Court had summarized the position of law as follows:
“19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court.[See: Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban and Bhagw an Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu]
(iv) An appeal against grant
