IMPORTANT POINT
Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly, especially in economic offences where custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that the Police have registered an F.I.R. No. 28 of 2025, dated 15.03.2025, against the petitioner at Police Station Damtal for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioner has an apprehension that the police would arrest him in connection with the aforesaid FIR, as he was working as a Manager in M/s ID Sood Ispat Ltd. at the relevant time. He has no role to play in the matter. He is innocent and belongs to a very reputable family in the area. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that a Bank Guarantee No.123442 amounting to Rs. 31,00,000/- was submitted by M/s ID Sood Ispat Village in favour of Assistant Engineer Electrical Sub Division, Damtal. The firm did not pay the electricity bill, and when the Electricity Board tried to encash the Bank guarantee, it was revealed by the Bank that the Board had permitted the firm to encash the Bank Guarantee. The Electricity Board checked its record and found that no such letter was ever written by the Board to the Bank. The Bank Guarantee was encashed by using a forged document. The Police registered an F.I.R. and seized the documents. It was found that an amount of Rs.39,23,428/- was deposited in the joint account of Raj Kumar Gupta and Radhika Mahajan, proprietors of M/s Sood Steels Pvt. Ltd. As per interrogation of the petitioner, he had submitted a letter to the Bank for encashing the Bank Guarantee. He had taken a banker’s cheque of Rs.39,23,428/- and handed it over to his employer’s company, namely, New Jammu Floor Mills. The petitioner is to be interrogated to find out where the letter was prepared and who had instructed him to present such letter before the Bank. The involvement of other persons, if any, is also to be ascertained. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner is an employee of the firm who had handed over the letter to the Bank as per the instructions of the firm. He had not forged the document and had not benefited from the money. He would join the investigation and abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had taken the letter to the Bank. The Bank guarantee was encashed pursuant to the letter submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is to be interrogated to determine where the document was prepared and who had handed over the document to the petitioner. The involvement of other persons, if any, is also to be ascertained. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

“69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has