CRM-M/44104/2026 of SURAJ Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 26 August 2026

::1::

(219) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-44104-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 26.08.2026 Suraj ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.121 dated 21.06.2026 under Sections 316(4) BNSS (Section 408 IPC), registered at Police Station Division No.2, District Pathankot.

2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Amarjit Singh and reads as under:- “To. The SHO, Police Station, Division No. 02, Pathankot. Subject: Application regarding less deposit of Amazon Pay cash. Respected Sir, it is submitted that, Suraj, son of Shri Hardeep Kumar, is the resident of Housing Board Colony, Tehsil & District Pathankot, Mobile No. 7719695680, have been working as a Cash Executive for Radiant Cash Management Services, Chandigarh, for the last 3 years. His duty is to collect cash from Amazon, Bajaj, Bata, Pantaloon, etc., in Pathankot and deposit it into the company's bank account. On ₹ 29/05/2026, he received receipt number 3342069 for 3,34,995/- from Amazon and deposited 91,768/-into the bank account, but kept 2,42,527/- with him, which has not been deposited till date. On

::2:: 30/05/2026, I met Suraj along with his family at his residence, and they promised that they would return the money by 04/06/2026. However, today on 04/06/2026, when I again met Suraj at Pathankot and talked about the money, he flatly refused, stating that he does not have the money. Therefore, I have now come to the Police Station to submit this application so that the outstanding amount of 2,42,527/- belonging to Radiant Company may be got recovered and necessary legal action be taken against him as soon as possible, for which I shall be highly grateful. Yours Faithfully, Sd/- Amarjit Singh, Manager, Radiant Cash Management Services Limited, Amritsar.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged occurrence took place on 29.05.2026 but the FIR was registered on 21.06.2026, after a delay of 24 days. This delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence available against the petitioner inculpating him in the offence in question. As he is a young boy of the age of 24 years and is ready and willing to join the investigation, he be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, has filed a reply dated 24.08.2026 which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he contends that the petitioner is duly named in the FIR. He received a sum of Rs.3,34,995/- from Amazon against Receipt No.3342069 but deposited only Rs.91,768/- and retained the balance amount of Rs.2,42,527/-. The offence is clearly made out. There is absolutely no delay in the registration of the FIR as the complaint was lodged on 04.06.2026 and it was only the FIR which came to be registered on 21.06.2026. As the offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

::3::

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977’, has held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the

::4:: accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”

7. The specific role of the petitioner has been enumerated in the reply dated 24.08.2026 and the relevant extract of the same is as under:- “7. Role attributed to the petitioner: That the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is the sole accused. The material collected during investigation shows that on 29.05.2026 the petitioner received Rs.3,34,995/- from Amazon against receipt No. 3342069, deposited only Rs.91,768/- in the bank account and retained the balance amount of Rs.2,42,527/-, which has not been deposited till date. The petitioner also allegedly assured the complainant on 30.05.2026 that the amount would be returned by 04.06.2026, but failed to do so. The receipt dated 29.05.2026 is stated to connect the petitioner with the transaction. Thus, the specific allegation against the petitioner is of criminal breach of trust in respect of the aforesaid amount.”

8. Keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the fact that the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary, particularly when the offence is prima facie made out.

9. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.

::5::

10. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.

11. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE August 26, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No