Absence of Corroborative Evidence and Poor Investigation Merit Grant of Anticipatory Bail in Financial Embezzlement Cases.

The petitioner, a Finance Officer at an NGO, sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 259/2025 registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave under Sections 316(4)/318(4)/344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner embezzled approximately ₹13,79,360/- by preparing fake vouchers and deleting entries from the NGO’s Tally system.

Specifically, ₹6,18,459/- was allegedly transferred to the petitioner's account via multiple small entries starting January 2024.

The petitioner contended that the funds were transferred on the complainant's directions for NGO activities.

Despite a previous court order, the State failed to file a status report.

1. Whether the accused/applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail given the nature of the allegations and the progress of the investigation.

2. Whether "non-cooperation" in interrogation, as alleged by the Investigating Officer (IO), constitutes sufficient grounds to deny bail when the accused has joined the investigation.

The court considered the provisions for anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), pertaining to offences under Sections 316(4), 318(4), and 344 of the BNS (relating to criminal breach of trust and cheating).

The court relied on the principle that the liberty of an individual should not be curtailed in the absence of cogent evidence.

It further observed the principle that an accused's inability to satisfy an interrogator's expectations (alleged non-cooperation) does not automatically warrant custodial interrogation if the accused has fulfilled the requirement of joining the investigation.

The court noted significant lapses in the investigation: the IO failed to file a status report, indicating a lack of serious opposition from the State.

Upon questioning, the IO admitted that despite eight months of investigation, the police had not seized the allegedly fake invoices, had not secured the computer hard disks for forensic analysis of the Tally system, and had not collected the documents allegedly retrieved from the waste bin.

Furthermore, the IO could not provide specific dates for the allegedly fraudulent transfers.

The court reasoned that the lack of material evidence suggested the applicant might be a "scapegoat."

Regarding the allegation of non-cooperation, the court held that an accused cannot be faulted if the interrogator is unable to elicit desired responses, noting that the applicant had indeed joined the investigation as directed.

The court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail subject to a personal bond of ₹10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO.

The applicant was further ordered to join the investigation whenever directed in writing by the IO.