Anticipatory bail denied where custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate substantial financial misappropriation.

The petitioner, Hardeep Kaur, was serving as Branch Manager of Muthoot Mercantile Ltd., Sunam Branch, during December 2025 to February 2026.

An FIR alleged that ₹12,60,000 remained unaccounted for and was not deposited into the company’s designated bank account.

The FIR was registered under Sections 316(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 408 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur.

The petitioner contended that the case was based principally on documentary evidence, including ledgers, cash registers, bank records, vouchers and reconciliation statements, and that no specific act of dishonest misappropriation was attributed to her.

She further submitted that certain transactions were attributable to co-accused Gurpreet Singh, that she had joined the investigation, and that no recovery remained to be effected from her.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, relying upon the gravity of the allegations and the petitioner’s position as Branch Manager.

Before deciding the main petition, the Court allowed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, recalled the earlier order dated 25 August 2026, and restored the main petition to its original number.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the FIR alleging misappropriation of ₹12,60,000?

Whether the documentary nature of the evidence, the petitioner’s alleged supervisory role, her joining the investigation and the absence of any pending recovery made custodial interrogation unnecessary?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, governing the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

It also considered Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., while deciding the recall and restoration application.

The governing principle was that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy, and may be declined where the nature and gravity of the allegations, the accused’s position and responsibilities, and the requirements of effective investigation make custodial interrogation necessary.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court held that the allegations were serious because the petitioner was the Branch Manager responsible for the branch’s day-to-day functioning, supervision of financial transactions and maintenance of accounts.

The alleged shortage was substantial and extended over a period of time, involving employees entrusted with the collection and deposit of cash.

The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner’s role was merely supervisory, observing that the investigation still had to determine how the shortage occurred, the movement and accounting of the funds, the respective roles of the petitioner and the co-accused, and the possibility of connivance.

Although the evidence was documentary and the petitioner had joined the investigation, the Court found that these circumstances did not, by themselves, eliminate the need for custodial interrogation.

Custodial questioning could be required to unravel the alleged modus operandi, confront the petitioner with financial and electronic records, and ascertain the roles of the persons involved.

In view of the gravity of the alleged financial irregularity, the petitioner’s position of responsibility and the need for effective investigation, the Court declined anticipatory bail.

The application for recall under Section 528 BNSS was allowed; the order dated 25 August 2026 was recalled and the main petition was restored to its original number and position.

All pending miscellaneous and consequential applications were disposed of as infructuous.