ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1876/2026 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-12-2025 in CRMM No. 67760/2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]

M/S CAN FIN HOMES LTD. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS VIVEK BHAGAT & ORS. Respondent(s)

IA No. 33877/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND IA No. 50390/2026 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/

FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 23-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Deepayan Mandal, AOR Mr. K. Ashwin, Adv.

Mr. Naman Varma, Adv.

Mr. Vishesh Goel, Adv.

Mr. Mridul Bansal, Adv.

Mr. Aryan Ahmed, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Farheen Fatma, AOR Mr. Mohd Asif, Adv.

Mr. Vikramaditya Chauhan, A.A.G.

Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.

Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv.

Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv.

Mr. Pushkar Sharma, Adv.

Signature Not Verified Digita lly s ign ed b y UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2026.02.24 Reason:

1. The petitioner – a Non-Banking Finance Company seeks to challenge the Order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 9-12-2025 in CRMM No. 67760/2025, by which the application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected thereby affirming the Order passed by the Sessions Court releasing the Respondent No.1 (original accused) on Bail in connection with FIR No.360 dated 23-7-2023 registered with Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code respectively (for short, “the IPC”).

2. To put it briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner as alleged that the Respondent No.1 serving as an Authorized Signatory of the petitioner – Company has misappropriated an amount of Rs.38,52,59,2,88/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Crore, Fifty Two Lakh, Fifty Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Eight Only). There are other two co-accused also alleged to have committed the crime along with the Respondent No.1 – herein.

3. The Respondent No.1 came to be released on regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala.

4. The Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the grant of regular bail to the Respondent No.1, challenged the order before the High Court. The High Court declined to interfere.

5. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner is here before us with the present petition.

6. We heard Mr. S.Gurukrishna Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Salman Khurshid, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 – accused and Mr. Vikramaditya Chauhan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State.

7. The prosecution is of the year 2023. The trial is in progress. By now, 14 witnesses have been examined. Prima facie, it appears that the Sessions Court exercised its discretion in favour of the accused, keeping in mind the fact that all the offences are Magistrate triable. Since more than 2 years have elapsed and the trial is in progress, we are not inclined to cancel the bail at this point of time. However, we take notice of the fact that even while granting bail, all that the Court directed was to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

8. We are of the view that appropriate conditions ought to have been imposed by the Sessions Court. The High Court could also have imposed even appropriate condition while declining to cancel the bail to safeguard the interest of the prosecution, more particularly, the petitioner – Company.

9. In such circumstances, referred to above, while declining to cancel the bail, we propose to impose two conditions i.e. (i) we direct the Respondent No.1 to deposit/surrender his Passport before the Trial Court within a period of