Section 482 BNSS | Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted Mechanically by Ignoring Status Report & Accused’s Conduct: Supreme Court

“The Court vide the impugned order appears to have taken a mechanical route in releasing the accused under the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail”— In a seminal ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, set aside an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that had granted anticipatory bail to an accused involved in a multi-crore embezzlement case, emphasizing that the High Court failed to consider the investigating agency's status report regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The dispute arose from an FIR lodged on November 25, 2024, by Salil Mahajan (the Appellant), a Chartered Accountant for Amandeep Healthcare Private Limited. The allegations were leveled against Avinash Kumar (Respondent No. 1), who was employed as a Senior Accountant at Amandeep Hospital.

According to the prosecution, the management discovered irregularities in the accounts of Amandeep Nursing College. Following an internal investigation, it was alleged that the accused had embezzled over Rs. 3 Crores by transferring funds from various units of the hospital to accounts belonging to himself and his family members. When an explanation was sought, the accused allegedly stopped reporting to work.

After the Sessions Court rejected his anticipatory bail application, the accused approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court, vide order dated April 2, 2025, granted him pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The High Court reasoned that since the accused had returned half of the embezzled amount and was willing to declare his assets, there was "no justifiability for custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration."

The Appellant-Complainant challenged the High Court's order, arguing that it suffered from non-application of mind. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offence and the specific need for custodial interrogation to recover the remaining funds and identify accomplices.

Conversely, the Counsel for the accused argued that since the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed on May 22, 2025, custodial interrogation was no longer warranted.

The "Mechanical Route" Error

The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the High Court's reasoning, characterizing it as a "mechanical route" to granting extraordinary relief. The Bench observed that the High Court had completely disregarded the Status Report filed by the investigating agency, which categorically stated that the accused was "on the run" and that his custodial interrogation was "utmost required" to recover the embezzled amount (cited as Rs. 2.7 Crores in the report) and identify other co-conspirators.

Justice Karol, writing for the Bench, noted:

"The impugned order, while explicitly recording the contents of this report, makes no reference to the contents thereof in its reasoning... In our view, the Court erred by not taking this relevant status report into consideration. Such failure cannot be sustained."

Grant vs. Cancellation of Bail

The Court reiterated the settled legal position regarding appeals against the grant of bail. Relying on the recent decision in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025), the Bench clarified that an appellate court can interfere with a bail order if it suffers from perversity, illegality, or fails to consider relevant factors such as the gravity of the offence.

Furthermore, citing Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab (2021), the Court observed that bail can be revoked if the lower court ignores relevant material on record. The Bench held that the filing of a chargesheet does not cure the initial defect of the High Court's order which failed to consider essential facts regarding the investigation.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail.

Surrender Directed: The accused, Avinash Kumar, has been directed to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks.

Liberty to Apply for Regular Bail: The Court clarified that after surrendering, the accused may apply for regular bail, which the Trial Court shall decide on its own merits, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court's observations.

Date of Decision: December 08, 2025