SCOI Reins In Mechanical Grant of Anticipatory Bail in ₹3-Cr Embezzlement Case

The Supreme Court’s decision in Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar marks a pointed reaffirmation of the discipline required while granting anticipatory bail, particularly in cases involving large-scale economic offences and allegations of deliberate evasion from investigation.

Setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail, the Court underscored that discretion in bail matters is neither unstructured nor immune from appellate correction when exercised mechanically or in disregard of relevant material.

What's The Matter?

The case arose from allegations of embezzlement exceeding ₹3 crore from multiple accounts of a healthcare institution, allegedly siphoned into the personal accounts of the accused and his family members.

While the Sessions Court had rejected anticipatory bail, the High Court invoked its inherent powers to grant relief, relying primarily on the partial return of funds and the accused’s expressed willingness to disclose assets.

This approach, the Supreme Court found, fundamentally misconceived the legal framework governing anticipatory bail.

What Court Said?

At the heart of the judgment lies a clear doctrinal distinction between an appeal against the grant of bail and an application for cancellation of bail.

Reiterating its recent pronouncement in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court clarified that appellate scrutiny focuses on perversity, non-application of mind, or failure to consider relevant factors such as gravity of offence, societal impact, and the requirements of investigation.

It is not a forum for re-evaluating evidence, but neither can it serve as a rubber stamp for flawed judicial discretion.

The Supreme Court was particularly critical of the High Court’s handling of the status report, which explicitly recorded that the accused was absconding and that custodial interrogation was essential for recovery of embezzled funds and identification of co-conspirators.

Although the High Court reproduced the contents of the report, it failed to engage with them meaningfully. This omission, the Court held, vitiated the bail order itself.

Recording material without assessing its implications does not amount to application of mind, especially when liberty is weighed against the integrity of criminal investigation.

Importantly, the judgment reinforces the principle that economic offences involving systemic manipulation of accounts and breach of trust cannot be approached with casual indulgence.

The Court rejected the notion that partial restitution or post facto cooperation automatically dilutes the need for custodial interrogation.

Such considerations, while relevant at later stages, cannot eclipse the investigative necessity at the threshold, particularly where the accused’s conduct suggests evasion.

The decision also carries a subtle but firm reminder about the extraordinary nature of anticipatory bail.

Drawing from Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail demands heightened judicial caution, especially where the accused’s liberty may impede investigation or undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The High Court’s failure to examine the gravity of allegations and the accused’s conduct rendered its order legally untenable.

Thanks For Visiting!!

Case Details:

SALIL MAHAJAN VS. AVINASH KUMAR - Crl.A. No. 5313/2025 - Diary Number 23638 / 2025 - 08-Dec-2025