Anticipatory bail in economic offences warrants strict scrutiny due to potential impact on public trust and judicial processes; absence of compelling reasons led to denial of bail.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS ’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.250 dated 17.10.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station City, Thanesar, Kurukshetra and for setting aside of order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the bail application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to defrauding the Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank by obtaining the three loans to the tune of Rs.65 lacs by the petitioner alongwith his wife (co-accused) while mortgaging two properties; one measuring 27 kanals 01 marla situated in village Balahi, Tehsil, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and the other land measuring 11 kanals situated in village Dabkheri, District Kurukshetra. However, without first redeeming a parcel of land measuring 11 kanals situated in village Dabkheri, the petitioner alongwith co-accused proceeded to sell the same for a substantial amount manifesting a clear intend to defraud the complainant- bank which necessitated the complainant-bank to lodged the instant FIR. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, instant FIR has been registered against the petitioner alongwith his wife (co-accused) and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel asserts that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are entirely baseless and devoid of any credible or cogent material. Furthermore, the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. It has been further iterated that the Police has tried to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute and thereby subjecting the petitioner to unwarranted harassment. It has been further iterated that the land measuring 11 kanals situated in village Dabkheri, District Kurukshetra has never been mortgaged by the petitioner to the complainant bank for the purpose of securing the loan or overdraft limit and hence no lien whatsoever was ever marked by the revenue authorities on the aforesaid land. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has never stopped the repayment/installment of the loan which is secured against an asset having market value which is thrice the outstanding loan amount. A bare perusal of the complaint as well as the FIR makes it abundantly clear that the complainant bank itself has acknowledge that there was no existing entry in the revenue records evidencing such a mortgage. According to learned counsel, the complainant bank moved an application seeking entry in the revenue records only at a belated stage, long after the alleged transaction. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner and his wife have consistently and diligently discharged their financial obligations towards the repayment of the loan and OD limit. Moreover, the petitioner has never acted with any criminal intent nor committed any offence as alleged. The entire prosecution narrative is nothing but an abuse of process, aimed at coercing the petitioner under the guise of criminal proceedings. Lastly, it has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice in case he is en