The process for granting anticipatory bail must reflect careful consideration of all relevant facts and the potential impact on the investigation.

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 s