IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 05.02.2026 Srinath Behera ........Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present Mr.Bahul Bunger, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***

SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case bearing FIR No.0008 dated 07.01.2026, under Sections 316(4), 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Basti Bawa Khel, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, in connivance with ₹

the co-accused, is alleged to have embezzled a sum of 12,15,136/-, being the bonus amount meant for approximately 304 employees, including those presently working as well as those who had left the company in previous years. Instead of disbursing the said bonus to the concerned employees, the amount was embezzled and credited to the bank account of the co-accused’s wife. The said account was subsequently blocked by the bank as several transactions were carried out on a single day. During investigation, it was revealed that over a span of two years, an amount of approximately ₹

70,72,778/- was illegally siphoned off from the company. Present petitioner was employed as an Accountant in the complainant company.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case; the allegations are against the main accused i.e Kirpal Singh and the petitioner has not received a single penny from the account of the company. The amount received by petitioner in his account is not in lump sum, rather in smaller transactions by way of loan from his colleague and also co-accused Kirpal Singh. Petitioner is ready to join the investigation, therefore, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Anup Singh, learned AAG, Punjab, vehemently opposed the bail petition by submitting that the petitioner is actively involved in the diversion of funds meant for payment of bonus to the employees who are presently working as well as those who had left the job in the preceding years; that the petitioner received an amount of ₹

9,00,000/- through the account of co-accused’s wife, into whose account the bonus amount was siphoned off through multiple transactions, and that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation for proper investigation of the case.

5. Heard.

6. Keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the document in support of that allegation with the prosecuting agency and the fact that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation to properly investigate the case and for collection of evidence; where the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to properly investigate the case and for collection of evidence, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as ‘CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806’

decided on 03.08.1997, wherein it has been held as under:-

“....custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal case