Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1396
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5313 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7275 of 2025)
SALIL MAHAJAN …APPELLANT(S)
V.
AVINASH KUMAR & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and
nd
order dated 2 April 2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-13103-2025 whereby
1
Respondent No. 1, accused-Avinash Kumar , came to be
enlarged on bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with the subject FIR No.
187 registered at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar under Sections
316(4), 344, 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present appeal are
2 th
that the Appellant lodged an FIR dated 25 November 2024
against the accused and his family members for allegedly
Signature Not Verified
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’
2
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.12.08
17:48:08 IST
Reason:
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) 7275/2025 Page 1 of 7
misappropriating more than Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. As per the FIR,
the complainant was the registered Chartered Accountant for
Amandeep Healthcare Private Limited, while the accused was
working as a Senior Accountant at Amandeep Hospital, GT
Road. It has been stated therein that the accused was
responsible for transferring amounts from the various Units of
Amandeep Hospital, with due permission of the higher
management. During the course of work, the management
discovered irregularities in the accounts of Amandeep Nursing
College. An explanation was called for from the accused;
however, he did not report to work. After an internal
investigation, it was discovered that the accused had embezzled
over Rs. 3 crores from various accounts, to accounts belonging
to him and his family members. The complainant made specific
allegations as to the transfer of money from the various units of
Amandeep Healthcare to the accused.
nd
4. On 22 January 2025, the accused sought anticipatory
bail before the Sessions Court. This application came to be
st
rejected vide order dated 21 February 2025 in Case No.
BA/470/2025. Aggrieved thereof, the accused moved an
application for the same relief before the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh as CRM-M-13103/2025. It is also a
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) 7275/2025 Page 2 of 7
matter of record that chargesheet came to be filed against the
nd
accused persons on 22 May 2025.
5. We have heard the parties at length and perused the
written submissions filed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has
submitted that the High Court has erroneously granted bail to
the accused. The significant grounds of challenge taken are that
the order suffers from non-application of mind and that the
Court below did not take into consideration the need for
custodial interrogation of the accused. The learned counsel
appearing for the State has lent support to the case of the
complainant and has submitted that custodial interrogation of
the accused is necessary, in the attending facts. On the other
hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has
contended that since the investigation has been completed, his
custodial interrogation is no longer warranted.
7. At the outset, it is well settled by this Court that an appeal
against the grant of bail and an application seeking cancellation
of bail are on different footing. The grounds for testing the
legality of an order granting bail are well settled. Recently, in
3
Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) , this Court had
summarized the position of law as follows:
2025 SCC Online SC 1690.
3
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) 7275/2025 Page 3 of 7
“19. The principles which emerge as a result of the
above discussion are as follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered
to be on the same footing as an application for
cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a
threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by
prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be
adjudicated at the stage of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of
mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of
bail that have been elucidated by this Court.
[See: Y v. State of
Rajasthan (Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban and Bhagw
an Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu ]
(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained
by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity;
illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not
been taken into consideration including gravity of the
offence and impact of the crime;
(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an
accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration
while considering an appeal against the grant of such
bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for
cancellation of bail; and
(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed
to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal
must be confined only to the grounds discussed above.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. We deem it appropriate to advert to the exposition of law,
4
in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab , where while setting
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5313 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7275 of 2025)
SALIL MAHAJAN …APPELLANT(S)
V.
AVINASH KUMAR & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and
nd
order dated 2 April 2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-13103-2025 whereby
1
Respondent No. 1, accused-Avinash Kumar , came to be
enlarged on bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with the subject FIR No.
187 registered at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar under Sections
316(4), 344, 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present appeal are
2 th
that the Appellant lodged an FIR dated 25 November 2024
against the accused and his family members for allegedly
Signature Not Verified
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’
2
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.12.08
17:48:08 IST
Reason:
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) 7275/2025 Page 1 of 7
misappropriating more than Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. As per the FIR,
the complainant was the registered Chartered Accountant for
Amandeep Healthcare Private Limited, while the accused was
working as a Senior Accountant at Amandeep Hospital, GT
Road. It has been stated therein that the accused was
responsible for transferring amounts from the various Units of
Amandeep Hospital, with due permission of the higher
management. During the course of work, the management
discovered irregularities in the accounts of Amandeep Nursing
College. An explanation was called for from the accused;
however, he did not report to work. After an internal
investigation, it was discovered that the accused had embezzled
over Rs. 3 crores from various accounts, to accounts belonging
to him and his family members. The complainant made specific
allegations as to the transfer of money from the various units of
Amandeep Healthcare to the accused.
nd
4. On 22 January 2025, the accused sought anticipatory
bail before the Sessions Court. This application came to be
st
rejected vide order dated 21 February 2025 in Case No.
BA/470/2025. Aggrieved thereof, the accused moved an
application for the same relief before the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh as CRM-M-13103/2025. It is also a
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) 7275/2025 Page 2 of 7
matter of record that chargesheet came to be filed against the
nd
accused persons on 22 May 2025.
5. We have heard the parties at length and perused the
written submissions filed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has
submitted that the High Court has erroneously granted bail to
the accused. The significant grounds of challenge taken are that
the order suffers from non-application of mind and that the
Court below did not take into consideration the need for
custodial interrogation of the accused. The learned counsel
appearing for the State has lent support to the case of the
complainant and has submitted that custodial interrogation of
the accused is necessary, in the attending facts. On the other
hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has
contended that since the investigation has been completed, his
custodial interrogation is no longer warranted.
7. At the outset, it is well settled by this Court that an appeal
against the grant of bail and an application seeking cancellation
of bail are on different footing. The grounds for testing the
legality of an order granting bail are well settled. Recently, in
3
Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) , this Court had
summarized the position of law as follows:
2025 SCC Online SC 1690.
3
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) 7275/2025 Page 3 of 7
“19. The principles which emerge as a result of the
above discussion are as follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered
to be on the same footing as an application for
cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a
threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by
prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be
adjudicated at the stage of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of
mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of
bail that have been elucidated by this Court.
[See: Y v. State of
Rajasthan (Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban and Bhagw
an Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu ]
(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained
by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity;
illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not
been taken into consideration including gravity of the
offence and impact of the crime;
(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an
accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration
while considering an appeal against the grant of such
bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for
cancellation of bail; and
(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed
to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal
must be confined only to the grounds discussed above.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. We deem it appropriate to advert to the exposition of law,
4
in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab , where while setting
| “11. | In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited |
|---|---|
| decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court |
(2021) 15 SCC 518.
4
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) 7275/2025 Page 4 of 7
| has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant | ||
|---|---|---|
| material available on record which renders the order | ||
| granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the | ||
| offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of | ||
| an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is | ||
| at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, | ||
| where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail | ||
| to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the | ||
| administration of criminal justice system. | This Court | |
| has repeatedly viewed that while granting bail, | ||
| especially anticipatory bail which is per se | ||
| extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to | ||
| influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family | ||
| members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or | ||
| creating other impediments in the fair investigation, | ||
| ought not to be overlooked | .” |
(emphasis supplied)
9. Applying the above expositions to the facts at hand, in
the considered view of this Court, the impugned judgment
warrants interference. The High Court observed that “there
would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or pre-trial
incarceration at this stage” . It was also observed, " there is a
return of half of the embezzled amount and petitioner is willing
to declare all his assets and bank details, as such, he is entitled
to bail .”
10. The reasoning adopted by the High Court completely
disregards the status report of the investigation against the
accused, where it had been categorically stated that:
“The present petitioner Avinash Kumar has embezelled
more than Rs. 2.7 crores from the accounts of
Amandeep Hospital and he is on a run. The custodial
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) 7275/2025 Page 5 of 7
interrogation of the petitioner is utmost required for fair
and proper investigation of the case as well as to
recover the embezelled amount and in order to identify
other persons who are involved with him in commission
of the crime.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. The impugned order, while explicitly recording the
contents of this report, makes no reference to the contents
thereof in its reasoning. Pertinently, there is no reference as to
why his alleged conduct of being on the run ought to be
ignored. In our view, the Court erred by not taking this relevant
status report into consideration. Such failure cannot be
sustained. Moreover, the Court vide the impugned order appears
to be have taken a mechanical route in releasing the accused
under the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. No
consideration was made to the merits of the allegations against
him or his conduct, as alleged by the investigating agencies.
12. Even if the contention of the accused is accepted that, due
to the filing of the charge sheet, his custodial interrogation is no
longer required, we have no doubt that the judgment of the High
Court is vitiated by non-consideration of essential facts.
13. In that view of the matter, the present appeal is allowed.
nd
The impugned order dated 2 April 2025 passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-13103-
2025, is set aside.
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) 7275/2025 Page 6 of 7
14. We clarify that the above observations are only for the
purpose of examining the order granting anticipatory bail and
should not be construed as remarks on the merits of the main
matter before the Trial Court.
15. The accused is directed to surrender before the Trial
Court within two weeks of the date of this judgment. It shall be
open for the accused to apply for regular bail before the
appropriate court, which shall be considered on its own merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
……….………………. J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………..………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
New Delhi,
December 08, 2025
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) 7275/2025 Page 7 of 7