Anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in economic offences, balancing individual rights with societal interests; custodial interrogation is crucial for effective investigation.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.499 dated 03.07.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420 of IPC, at Police Station Karnal Sadar, District Karnal, Haryana.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with other co-accused induced the complainant by promising to send his son abroad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no concern with the alleged transactions between the complainant and other co-accused persons and there is no documentary evidence such as agreements, receipts, or acknowledgments linking the petitioner to the complainant, nor any documents bear his signatures, handwriting, or seal. He further contends that the alleged cheques are not supported by direct or admissible evidence, and no legally enforceable liability is established; a related cheque bounce case (NACT/4408/2024) is already pending before the Ld. JMIC, Karnal. Even if the claims are taken at face value, the matter is purely civil in nature, involving monetary transactions and cheque bounce, which are already covered under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It has been further contended that the complainant is trying to give it a criminal colour to pressurize the petitioner. Moreover, no offence under Sections 406 or 420 IPC is made out, as there was no dishonest intention or misappropriation. Further, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required as all relevant documents are already with the complainant and police and the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide order dated 22.09.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner, along with other co-accused, fraudulently induced the complainant to pay a total sum of Rs. 23 lakhs under the pretext of sending his son abroad. He further submits that the petitioner has admitted his liability towards the complainant by issuing three cheques amounting to Rs.17 lakhs; however, all the cheques were dishonoured upon presentation. It has been further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to effect recovery of the remaining amount of Rs.6 lacs. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ State Vs. Anil Sharma ’, (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under: "6. We find, force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like t