Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar Goyal v. State Of Punjab

​-​1​-​ ​IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA​ ​AT CHANDIGARH​ ​104​ ​Date of decision:17.04.2026​ ​Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar Goyal​ ​....Petitioner​ ​Versus​ ​State of Punjab​ ​...Respondent​ ​CORAM:​ ​HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY​ ​*****​ ​Present :​ ​Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.​ ​Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.​ ​*****​ ​AMAN CHAUDHARY,​​J. (ORAL)​ ​1.​ ​The​ ​present​ ​petition​ ​has​ ​been​ ​filed​​under​​Section​​482​​of​​BNSS​​for​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​anticipatory​ ​bail​ ​to​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​FIR​ ​No.44​ ​dated​ ​04.04.

2025,​ ​registered​ ​at​ ​Police​ ​Station​ ​Sirhind,​ ​District​ ​Fatehgarh​ ​Sahib,​ ​under​ ​Sections​ ​318(4),​​338,​​336(3),​​340(2),​​61​​of​​BNS​​(corresponding​​to​​Sections​​420,​​467,​​468,​ ​471​​and​​120A​​and​​120B​​IPC)​​and​​off​​ence​​under​​Sections​​316(4),​​318,​​61(2)​​of​ ​BNS​​(corresponding​​to​​Sections​​408,​​415,​​417,​​418,​​420,​​120-B​​IPC)​​and​​Sections​ ​13(1)(b) and 13(2) of​​Prevention of Corruption Act​​added later on.​ ​2.

​-​2​-​ ​any​​message​​regarding​​the​​same​​on​​his​​mobile​​phone.​​There​​were​​some​​amounts​ ​during​​the​​tenure​​of​​the​​previous​​BDPO​​also,​​wherein​​similar​​cheques​​were​​issued​ ​and​​the​​transactions​​were​​made​​and​​by​​the​​present​​complainant​​as​​well,​​thus,​​prays​ ​that he be granted anticipatory bail​.​ ​ ​3.​ ​Learned​​State​​counsel,​​on​​the​​other​​hand,​​has​​drawn​​the​​attention​​of​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​to​ ​the​ ​mobile​ ​number​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​on​ ​which​ ​the​ ​intimation​ ​regarding​​clearance​​of​​the​​cheques​​was​​received,​​it​​being​​the​​same​​as​​mentioned​ ​in​​memo​​of​​parties​​of​​this​​petition,​​to​​be​​his​​own​​and​​the​​same​​number​​is​​also​​on​ ​the​​original​​cheques,​​the​​same​​his​​signatures​​thereon.

​​Further​​that,​​in​​the​​tabulated​ ​details​​which​​have​​been​​given,​​the​​cheques​​were​​issued​​based​​on​​resolutions​​and​ ​on​​some​​dates​​without​​there​​being​​any​​on​​a​​few.​​Records​​of​​the​​Gram​​Panchayat​ ​are​​not​​available​​and​​therefore​​his​​custodial​​interrogation​​is​​required​​to​​ascertain​ ​the​​modus​​operandi​ ​of​​usurping​​the​​Government​​funds.​​The​​petitioner​​is​​involved​ ​in​​one​​more​​case​​under​​the​​Prevention​​of​​Corruption​​Act,​​1988,​​wherein​​he​​was​ ​caught​ ​red​ ​handed​​in​​a​​trap​​case,​​accepting​​the​​bribe​​amount​​and​​another​​under​ ​IPC,​​thus,​​he​​is​​a​​habitual​​offender.​​There​​is​​an​​apprehension​​that​​he​​can​​tamper​ ​with the evidence or influence the witnesses as also flight risk.​ ​4.​ ​Heard.​ ​5.

​ ​It​ ​would​ ​be​ ​apposite​ ​to​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​the​ ​status​ ​report​​dated​​08.04.

​-​3​-​ ​relevant paras whereof read thus:​ ​"5.​ ​That​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​remained​ ​as​ ​BDPO​ ​during​ ​the​ ​period​ ​of​ ​07.11.2022​ ​to​ ​10.07.2024​ ​and​ ​alleged​ ​embezzlement​ ​of​ ​approximately​ ​Rs.​ ​19​ ​crores​ ​occurred​ ​during​ ​his​ ​tenure​ ​and​ ​out​ ​of​ ​those​ ​19​ ​crores​ ​the​ ​cheques​ ​amounting​ ​to​ ​Rs.​ ​10​ ​crores​ ​are​ ​in​ ​the​ ​possession​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Vigilance​ ​Department​ ​and​ ​the​ ​remaining​ ​cheques​ ​amounting​​to​​Rs.​​9​​crores​​are​​yet​​to​​be​​recovered​​from​​the​​different​ ​Banks​​and​​all​​131​​cheques​​were​​issued​​under​​his​​signatures​​primarily​ ​connecting​ ​him​ ​with​ ​the​ ​present​ ​offence.​ ​It​ ​would​ ​be​ ​relevant​ ​to​ ​mention​​here​​that​​as​​per​​rules,​​any​​amount​​above​​Rs.

​​25,000/-​​has​​to​ ​be​ ​signed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​BDPO​ ​concerned​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​signatures​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioner were appended over the above said cheques.​ ​Cheque​ ​Passing​ ​resolution ​Y/N​ ​MOB. USED FOR​ ​CONFORMATIOM​ ​Sr​ ​no​ ​Chequ​ ​Cheque​ ​e No.

​-​4​-​ ​30​ ​257​ ​16/03/2023​ ​20/03/2023​ ​21,00,300​ ​no​ ​94631-93749​ ​31​ ​258​ ​16/03/2023​ ​20/03/2023​ ​23,00,900​ ​no​ ​94631-93749​ ​no​ ​94631-93749( by​ ​32​ ​198​ ​16/03/2023​ ​20/03/2023​ ​1,35,996​ ​Suman)​ ​33​ ​197​ ​16/03/2023​ ​20/03/2023​ ​5,46,000​ ​no​ ​94631-93749​ ​34​ ​200​ ​16/03/2023​ ​20/03/2023​ ​69,550​ ​no​ ​94631-93749​ ​35​ ​199​ ​16/03/2023​ ​20/03/2023​ ​5,18,947​ ​no​ ​94631-93749​ ​36​ ​204​ ​27/03/2023​ ​29/03/2023​ ​85,810​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​37​ ​364​ ​27/03/2023​ ​29/03/2023​ ​3,54,470​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​38​ ​201​ ​16/03/2023​ ​29/03/2023​ ​1,00,000​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​39​ ​202​ ​16/03/2023​ ​29/03/2023​ ​20,000​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​40​ ​362​ ​27/03/2023​ ​29/03/2023​ ​8,76,000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​41​ ​259​ ​16/03/2023​ ​29/03/2023​ ​20,00,200​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​42​ ​260​ ​16/03/2023​ ​29/03/2023​ ​19,00,700​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​43​ ​363​ ​27/03/2023​ ​29/03/2023​ ​150000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​yes​ ​94631-93749( by​ ​44​ ​365​ ​28/03/2023​ ​7/04/2023​ ​2,71,992​ ​Suman)​ ​45​ ​410​ ​28/03/2023​ ​7/04/2023​ ​21,97,000​ ​no​ ​Ramesh( by Suman)​ ​46​ ​409​ ​28/03/2023​ ​7/04/2023​ ​23,61,000​ ​no​ ​Ramesh( by Suman)​ ​47​ ​369​ ​10-04-2023​ ​18/04/2023​ ​1,58,890​ ​yes​ ​94631-93749​ ​48​ ​413​ ​10-04-2023​ ​18/04/2023​ ​23,61,700​ ​no​ ​94631-93749​ ​49​ ​368​ ​10-04-2023​ ​18/04/2023​ ​7,90,520​ ​yes​ ​94631-93749​ ​50​ ​415​ ​10-04-2023​ ​18/04/2023​ ​24,51,900​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​51​ ​414​ ​10-04-2023​ ​18/04/2023​ ​21,97,600​ ​no​ ​94631-93749​ ​52​ ​416​ ​10-04-2023​ ​18/04/2023​ ​19,70,100​ ​no​ ​94631-93749​ ​53​ ​412​ ​10-04-2023​ ​18/04/2023​ ​23,71,100​ ​no​ ​94631-93749​ ​54​ ​370​ ​10-04-2023​ ​18/04/2023​ ​5,38,762​ ​no​ ​94631-93749​ ​55​ ​411​ ​10-04-2023​ ​27/04/2023​ ​24,51,300​ ​no​ ​93171-00076​ ​56​ ​417​ ​10-04-2023​ ​27/04/2023​ ​23,91,900​ ​no​ ​93171-00076(suman)​ ​57​ ​374​ ​28-04-2023​ ​09-05-2023​ ​9,80,400​ ​no​ ​Ramesh​ ​58​ ​375​ ​28-04-2023​ ​09-05-2023​ ​17,76,750​ ​no​ ​Ramesh​ ​59​ ​373​ ​28-04-2023​ ​09-05-2023​ ​2,03,994​ ​no​ ​Ramesh​ ​60​ ​FD​ ​10-05-2023​ ​11-05-2023​ ​100936986.

3​ ​61​ ​420​ ​28/04/2023​ ​11-05-2023​ ​30,61,500​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​62​ ​423​ ​28/04/2023​ ​11-05-2023​ ​29,76,750​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​63​ ​372​ ​28/04/2023​ ​11-05-2023​ ​13,73,280​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​64​ ​376​ ​28/04/2023​ ​11-05-2023​ ​21,73,100​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​65​ ​422​ ​28/04/2023​ ​11-05-2023​ ​30,71,400​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​66​ ​424​ ​28/04/2023​ ​11-05-2023​ ​25,80,400​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Shweta)​ ​67​ ​371​ ​27/04/2023​ ​11-05-2023​ ​1,50,000​ ​no​ ​no mob.

​-​5​-​ ​74​ ​381​ ​17/05/2023​ ​07-06-2023​ ​4,24,468​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Suman)​ ​75​ ​384​ ​17/05/2023​ ​07-06-2023​ ​2,23,500​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Suman)​ ​76​ ​382​ ​17/05/2023​ ​07-06-2023​ ​4,71,250​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Suman)​ ​77​ ​386​ ​18/05/2023​ ​07-06-2023​ ​4,83,000​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Suman)​ ​78​ ​436​ ​19/05/2023​ ​07-06-2023​ ​21,52,000​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Suman)​ ​79​ ​387​ ​19/05/2023​ ​07-06-2023​ ​5,43,750​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Suman)​ ​80​ ​385​ ​18/05/2023​ ​07-06-2023​ ​5,52,000​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Suman)​ ​81​ ​435​ ​18/05/2023​ ​07-06-2023​ ​23,78,500​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Suman)​ ​82​ ​437​ ​18/05/2023​ ​07-06-2023​ ​19,71,250​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Suman)​ ​83​ ​FD​ ​07-06-2023​ ​07-06-2023​ ​101491780.

​-​6​-​ ​120​ ​478​ ​09-08-2023​ ​20/09/2023​ ​3,50,000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​121​ ​492​ ​15/09/2023​ ​27/10/2023​ ​30,000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​122​ ​493​ ​15/09/2023​ ​27/10/2023​ ​30,000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​123​ ​491​ ​15/09/2023​ ​27/10/2023​ ​30,000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​124​ ​494​ ​15/09/2023​ ​27/10/2023​ ​30,000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​125​ ​495​ ​15/09/2023​ ​27/10/2023​ ​30,000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​126​ ​498​ ​15/09/2023​ ​27/10/2023​ ​30,000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​127​ ​508​ ​14/02/2024​ ​01-03-2024​ ​50,00,000​ ​NO​ ​no mobile number​ ​128​ ​509​ ​28/02/2024​ ​03-07-2024​ ​96,00,000​ ​yes​ ​no mobile number​ ​129​ ​711​ ​02-05-2025​ ​26/03/2025​ ​20,000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​130​ ​712​ ​27/02/2025​ ​02-04-2025​ ​24,000​ ​no​ ​no mobile number​ ​07-06​ ​-2023​ ​4,78,500​ ​no​ ​Ramesh(Suman​)​ ​"​ ​131​ ​383​ ​17-05-2023​ ​6.

​ ​Hon'ble​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​​in​​Sumitha​​Pradeep​​vs.​​Arun​​Kumar​ ​C.K.​,​ ​2022​ ​SCC​ ​OnLine​ ​SC​ ​1529,​ ​observed​ ​that​ ​requirement​ ​of​ ​custodial​ ​interrogation​​is​​not​​the​​only​​ground​​to​​decide​​the​​grant​​of​​anticipatory​​bail.​​The​ ​relevant para reads thus:​ ​"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​ ​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.

​-​7​-​ ​to​ ​decline​ ​anticipatory​ ​bail.​ ​However,​ ​even​ ​if​ ​custodial​ ​interrogation​​is​​not​​required​​or​​necessitated,​​by​​itself,​​cannot​​be​ ​a ground to grant anticipatory bail.​"​ ​7.​ ​In​​Jai​​Parkash​​Singh​​vs.​​State​​of​​Bihar​​(2012)​​4​​SCC​​379,​​Hon'ble​ ​the​​Supreme​​Court​​while​​relying​​on​​the​​judgments​​in​​the​​cases​​of​​D.K.​​Ganesh​ ​Babu​​vs.​​P.T​​Manokaran​​(2007)​​4​​SCC​​434,​​State​​of​​Maharashtra​​vs.​​Mohd.​ ​Sajid​ ​Husain​ ​Mohd.​ ​S.​ ​Husain​,​ ​(2008)​ ​1​ ​SCC​ ​213,​ ​and​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​ ​vs.​ ​Padam Narain Aggarwal​​(2008) 13 SCC 305, held thus: ​ ​"6.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​rival​ ​submissions​ ​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​parties​ ​and​ ​perused​ ​the​ ​record. ​ ​7.​ ​The​ ​provisions​ ​of​​Section​​438​​Cr.P.C.

​​lay​​down​​guidelines​ ​for​​considering​​the​​anticipatory​​bail​​application,​​which​​read​​as​ ​under: ​ ​"438.​ ​Direction​ ​for​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​bail​ ​to​ ​person​ ​apprehending​ ​arrest.

- ​ ​(1)​ ​Where​ ​any​ ​person​ ​has​ ​reason​ ​to​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​he​ ​may​ ​be​ ​arrested​ ​on​ ​an​​accusation​​of​​having​​committed​​a​​non-bailable​ ​offence,​ ​he​ ​may​ ​apply​ ​to​ ​the​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​or​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​of​ ​Session​ ​for​ ​a​ ​direction​ ​under​ ​this​ ​section​ ​that​​in​​the​​event​​of​ ​such​ ​arrest,​ ​he​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​released​ ​on​ ​bail;​ ​and​ ​that​ ​court​ ​may,​ ​after​​taking​​into​​consideration,​​inter​​alia,​​the​​following​​factors,​ ​namely:- ​ ​(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation; ​ ​(ii)​ ​The​ ​antecedents​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​including​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​as​ ​to​ ​whether​ ​he​ ​has​ ​previously​ ​undergone​ ​imprisonment​ ​on​ ​conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; ​ ​(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and ​ ​(iv)​ ​where​ ​the​ ​accusation​ ​has​ ​been​ ​made​ ​with​ ​the​ ​object​ ​of​ ​injuring​​or​​humiliating​​the​​applicant​​by​​having​​him​​so​​arrested,​ ​either​​reject​​the​​application​​forthwith​​or​​issue​​an​​interim​​order​ ​for the grant of anticipatory bail."

​-​8​-​ ​8.​​In​​view​​of​​the​​above,​​it​​is​​mandatory​​on​​the​​part​​of​​the​​court​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​the​ ​compliance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​pre-requisite​ ​conditions​ ​for​ ​grant​​of​​anticipatory​​bail​​including​​the​​nature​​and​​gravity​​of​​the​ ​accusation.​ ​ ​xx xx xx ​ ​13.​​There​​is​​no​​substantial​​difference​​between​​Sections​​438​​and​ ​439​​Cr.P.C.​​so​​far​​as​​appreciation​​of​​the​​case​​as​​to​​whether​​or​ ​not​ ​a​ ​bail​ ​is​ ​to​ ​be​ ​granted,​ ​is​ ​concerned.​ ​However,​ ​neither​ ​anticipatory​​bail​​nor​​regular​​bail​​can​​be​​granted​​as​​a​​matter​​of​ ​rule.​ ​The​ ​anticipatory​ ​bail​ ​being​ ​an​ ​extraordinary​ ​privilege​ ​should​ ​be​ ​granted​ ​only​ ​in​ ​exceptional​ ​cases.

​ ​The​ ​judicial​ ​discretion​​conferred​​upon​​the​​court​​has​​to​​be​​properly​​exercised​ ​after​ ​proper​ ​application​ ​of​ ​mind​ ​to​ ​decide​ ​whether​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a​ ​fit​ ​case for grant of anticipatory bail.​ ​ ​xx xx xx ​ ​21.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​and​ ​circumstances​​of​​this​​case,​​we​​are​​of​​the​ ​considered​ ​opinion​ ​that​ ​it​ ​was​ ​not​ ​a​ ​fit​ ​case​ ​for​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​anticipatory​ ​bail.​ ​The​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​ought​ ​to​​have​​exercised​​its​ ​extraordinary​ ​jurisdiction​ ​following​ ​the​ ​parameters​ ​laid​​down​ ​by​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​above​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​judicial​ ​pronouncements,​ ​considering​​the​​nature​​and​​gravity​​of​​the​​offence​​and​​as​​the​​FIR​ ​had​ ​been​ ​lodged​ ​spontaneously,​ ​its​ ​veracity​ ​is​ ​reliable.

​ ​The​ ​High​​Court​​has​​very​​lightly​​brushed​​aside​​the​​fact​​that​​FIR​​had​ ​been​ ​lodged​ ​spontaneously​ ​and​ ​further​ ​did​ ​not​ ​record​ ​any​ ​reason​ ​as​​how​​the​​pre-requisite​​conditions​​incorporated​​in​​the​ ​statutory​ ​provision​ ​itself​ ​stood​ ​fulfilled.​ ​Nor​ ​did​ ​the​ ​court​ ​consider as to whether custodial interrogation was required."​ ​8.​ ​Hon'ble​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​P.​ ​Chidambaram​ ​vs.​ ​Directorate​ ​of​ ​Enforcement,​ ​(2019)​ ​9​ ​SCC​ ​24,​​has​​observed​​that,​​"Ordinarily,​ ​arrest​​is​​a​​part​​of​​procedure​​of​​the​​investigation​​to​​secure​​not​​only​​the​​presence​​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​but​ ​several​ ​other​ ​purposes.​ ​Power​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​438​ ​CrPC​ ​is​ ​an​ ​extraordinary​​power​​and​​the​​same​​has​​to​​be​​exercised​​sparingly.

​-​9​-​ ​the​ ​pre-arrest​ ​bail​ ​should​ ​be​ ​granted​ ​only​ ​in​ ​exceptional​ ​cases.​ ​The​ ​judicial​ ​discretion​​conferred​​upon​​the​​court​​has​​to​​be​​properly​​exercised​​after​​application​ ​of​ ​mind​ ​as​ ​to​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​and​ ​gravity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accusation;​ ​possibility​ ​of​ ​applicant​ ​fleeing​ ​justice​ ​and​ ​other​ ​factors​ ​to​ ​decide​ ​whether​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a​ ​fit​ ​case​ ​for​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​anticipatory​​bail.​​Grant​​of​​anticipatory​​bail​​to​​some​​extent​​interferes​​in​​the​​sphere​ ​of​ ​investigation​ ​of​ ​an​ ​offence​ ​and​ ​hence,​ ​the​ ​court​ ​must​ ​be​ ​circumspect​ ​while​ ​exercising​​such​​power​​for​​grant​​of​​anticipatory​​bail.

​​Anticipatory​​bail​​is​​not​​to​​be​ ​granted​ ​as​ ​a​ ​matter​ ​of​ ​rule​ ​and​ ​it​ ​has​ ​to​ ​be​ ​granted​ ​only​ ​when​ ​the​ ​court​ ​is​ ​convinced​ ​that​ ​exceptional​ ​circumstances​ ​exist​ ​to​ ​resort​ ​to​ ​that​ ​extraordinary​ ​remedy."​ ​9​.​ ​Even​​otherwise,​​the​​petitioner​​has​​not​​been​​able​​to​​show​​absence​​of​​a​ ​prima​​facie​​offence​​so​​as​​to​​warrant​​the​​extraordinary​​relief​​of​​anticipatory​​bail,​​as​ ​held​ ​by​ ​Hon'ble​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Salochna​ ​Pardi​ ​vs.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Madhya​ ​Pradesh​ ​and​ ​another​,​ ​SLP​ ​Crl.​ ​No.​ ​18200-2025,​ ​vide​ ​judgment​ ​dated​ ​06.01.2026. ​ ​10.

​ ​It​​is​​the​​bounden​​duty​​of​​the​​Court​​to​​take​​into​​consideration​​all​​the​ ​facts​ ​and​ ​circumstances​ ​and​ ​after​ ​its​ ​utmost​ ​satisfaction,​ ​grant​ ​anticipatory​ ​bail​ ​only​ ​in​ ​exceptional​ ​circumstances,​ ​where​​all​​the​​factors​​and​​parameters​​are​​met​ ​and there is no possibility of the accused interfering in the path of justice.

​-​10​-​ ​11.​​ ​​ ​ ​Prima​​facie​,​​the​​allegations​​against​​the​​petitioner​​are​​grave​​and​​attract​ ​serious​​concern,​​particularly​​in​​light​​of​​the​​position​​of​​public​​trust​​held​​by​​him​​as​​a​ ​BDPO.​ ​The​ ​same​ ​discloses​ ​commission​ ​of​ ​serious​ ​offences​ ​involving​ ​cheating,​ ​criminal​ ​breach​ ​of​ ​trust​ ​and​ ​misappropriation​ ​of​ ​government​ ​funds​ ​of​ ​Rs.​ ​19​ ​Crores​ ​meant​ ​for​ ​public​ ​welfare,​ ​as​ ​detailed​ ​in​ ​para​ ​No.5​ ​of​ ​the​ ​status​ ​report​ ​reproduced​ ​hereinabove.​ ​It​ ​has​​come​​to​​light​​that​​the​​mobile​​numbers​​on​​which​ ​the​ ​intimidation​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​cheques​ ​were​ ​sent​ ​and​ ​the​ ​one​ ​mentioned​ ​in​ ​the​ ​memo​​of​​the​​parties​​to​​be​​that​​of​​the​​petitioner,​​are​​identical,​​therefore​​he​​cannot​ ​now​​plead​​ignorance.

​​Considering​​the​​gravity​​and​​nature​​of​​the​​same,​​his​​custodial​ ​interrogation​ ​is​ ​necessary​ ​for​ ​a​ ​fair​ ​and​ ​effective​ ​investigation,​ ​particularly​ ​for​ ​recovery​​of​​the​​misappropriated​​proceeds​​and​​for​​unearthing​​the​​complete​​modus​ ​operandi​​as​​well​​as​​the​​money​​trail.​​Moreover,​​co-accused,​​the​​Sarpanch,​​who​​is​ ​similarly​​circumstanced​​had​​filed​​an​​anticipatory​​bail​​before​​this​​Court,​​wherein​ ​liberty​​was​​granted​​to​​him​​to​​first​​approach​​the​​Court​​of​​Sessions​​vide​​order​​dated​ ​16.03.2026​ ​in​ ​CRM-M-33134-2025,​ ​which​ ​has​ ​subsequently​ ​been​​dismissed​​on​ ​01.04.2026.​ ​There​ ​exists​ ​a​ ​reasonable​ ​apprehension​ ​that​ ​he​ ​may​ ​influence​ ​witnesses​ ​or​ ​tamper​ ​with​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​if​ ​granted​ ​the​​concession​​of​​anticipatory​ ​bail.

​​The​​petitioner​​is​​stated​​to​​be​​involved​​in​​one​​more​​case​​under​​the​​Prevention​ ​of​​Corruption​​Act,​​1988.

​-​11​-​ ​the​​concession​​of​​anticipatory​​bail​​to​​him,​​as​​the​​element​​of​​criminality​​cannot​​be​ ​ruled​ ​out​ ​and​ ​permitting​ ​him​ ​to​ ​join​ ​the​ ​investigation​ ​under​ ​the​ ​protective​ ​umbrella​ ​of​ ​pre-arrest​ ​bail​ ​is​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​hamper​ ​a​ ​thorough​ ​and​ ​effective​ ​investigation and impede the unravelling of the larger conspiracy.​ ​12. In​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​foregoing​ ​discussion,​ ​the​ ​present​ ​petition​ ​is​ ​hereby​ ​dismissed, being devoid of merit. ​ ​13.​ ​The​​observations​​made​​hereinabove​​are​​meant​​only​​for​​the​​purpose​​of​ ​deciding​ ​the​ ​present​ ​petition​ ​and​ ​in​ ​no​ ​manner​ ​are​ ​to​ ​be​ ​construed​ ​as​ ​an​ ​expression of opinion on the merits of the case.​ ​(AMAN CHAUDHARY)​ ​JUDGE​ ​17.04.2026​ ​dinesh​ ​Whether speaking/reasoned​ ​:​ ​Yes/No​ ​Whether reportable​ ​:​ ​Yes/No​