Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy granted sparingly. In cases of grave economic offenses involving public servants and misappropriation of government funds, custodial interrogation is essential to uncover the modus operandi and recover proceeds, outweighing the request for pre-arrest bail.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.44 dated 04.04.2025, registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61 of BNS (corresponding to Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120A and 120B IPC) and off ence under Sections 316(4), 318, 61(2) of BNS (corresponding to Sections 408, 415, 417, 418, 420, 120-B IPC) and Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act added later on.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, Senior Accountant, was assigned duties of the post of BDPO and had never signed the cheques issued in favour of different firms as mentioned in para 5 of the status report nor received any message regarding the same on his mobile phone. There were some amounts during the tenure of the previous BDPO also, wherein similar cheques were issued and the transactions were made and by the present complainant as well, thus, prays that he be granted anticipatory bail .

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has drawn the attention of this Court to the mobile number of the petitioner on which the intimation regarding clearance of the cheques was received, it being the same as mentioned in memo of parties of this petition, to be his own and the same number is also on the original cheques, the same his signatures thereon. Further that, in the tabulated details which have been given, the cheques were issued based on resolutions and on some dates without there being any on a few. Records of the Gram Panchayat are not available and therefore his custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the modus operandi of usurping the Government funds. The petitioner is involved in one more case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein he was caught red handed in a trap case, accepting the bribe amount and another under IPC, thus, he is a habitual offender. There is an apprehension that he can tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses as also flight risk.

4. Heard.

5. It would be apposite to refer to the status report dated 08.04.2026, relevant paras whereof read thus:

“5. That the petitioner remained as BDPO during the period of 07.11.2022 to 10.07.2024 and alleged embezzlement of approximately Rs. 19 crores occurred during his tenure and out of those 19 crores the cheques amounting to Rs. 10 crores are in the possession of the Vigilance Department and the remaining cheques amounting to Rs. 9 crores are yet to be recovered from the different Banks and all 131 cheques were issued under his signatures primarily connecting him with the present offence. It would be relevant to mention here that as per rules, any amount above Rs. 25,000/- has to be signed by the BDPO concerned and therefore signatures of the petitioner were appended over the above said cheques.

[[IMG_1]]

[[IMG_2]]

[[IMG_3]]

[[IMG_4]]

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, observed that requirement of custodial interrogation is not the only ground to decide the grant of anticipatory bail. The relevant para reads thus:

“In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial inter