Amit Giri vs UT of Chandigarh

First Petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ["BNSS"] (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.60 dated 24.04.2026, registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 420, 467, 465 and 471 IPC), at Police Station Sector-11 (West), Chandigarh.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Indian Red Cross Society, UT Branch, Chandigarh, through its Secretary, awarded a manpower services contract to M/s Samrat Security, through its proprietor Amit Giri, vide GeM Contract No. GEMC-511687770137476 dated 12.09.2025, for the period from 01.10.2025 to 30.09.2028. Under the terms of the contract, the contractor was required to furnish a genuine Performance Bank Guarantee of ₹82,36,851/- and ensure timely payment of salaries/wages to 132 deployed personnel, besides depositing statutory dues towards EPF, ESI and GST and furnishing proof of such compliance. It is alleged that the contractor submitted a document purporting to be a Performance Bank Guarantee issued by the Bank of Baroda, Pandaveswar, District West Bardhaman, West Bengal. Upon verification, however, the issuing bank allegedly confirmed that no such Bank Guarantee had been issued by it and cautioned against acting upon the said instrument. It is further alleged that the contractor thereafter failed to discharge its contractual obligations, including timely payment of wages and statutory contributions towards EPF and ESI, despite repeated notices and opportunities. On these allegations, the complainant sought registration of the present FIR for allegedly securing the contract on the basis of a forged Bank Guarantee and thereafter committing fraud and breach of contractual obligations.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been registered mechanically, without any preliminary verification, despite the dispute essentially arising out of a commercial transaction. It is contended that the petitioner, a private security contractor, was awarded a manpower contract by the complainant-Society and, pursuant thereto, duly paid the salaries and statutory dues of the existing 132 employees for two months. Owing to the insistence of the complainant-Society upon retention of the existing workforce and the consequent contractual difficulties, the petitioner rescinded the contract and duly communicated his decision to the complainant-Society.

It is further submitted that the Performance Bank Guarantee of ₹82.36 lakh furnished as security was withdrawn immediately upon the petitioner becoming aware of the alleged discrepancy, thereby causing neither wrongful loss to the complainant-Society nor any corresponding wrongful gain to the petitioner. The allegations regarding non-payment of EPF and GST are also stated to be factually incorrect. Thus, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie not attracted and the dispute is essentially contractual and commercial in nature.

Learned counsel further submits that the case rests entirely upon documentary material already available with the investigating agency and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is wholly unwarranted. The petitioner has clean antecedents, is permanently rooted in society and has established business establishments at Jamshedpur and Chandigarh. It is, accordingly, prayed that the petitioner be extended the concession of anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion.

Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, learned APP, accepts notice on behalf of the U.T. Chandigarh and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel, while relying upon the impugned order, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and that he does not deserve the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissal of the petition is accordingly prayed for.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book minutely with their able assistance.

The petitioner was required, under the terms of the contractual arrangement, to furnish a Performance Bank Guarantee towards due and faithful performance of the contract and timely disbursement of wages to the deployed manpower. The said Bank Guarantee, upon verification from the purported issuing bank, is stated to have been found to be non-existent and fabricated. It is further alleged that statutory dues towards EPF in respect of 132 workers, as also GST, were not duly discharged by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the EPF contributions were duly deposited and that no formally executed agreement was entered into between the parties. However, the material placed on record prima facie indicates that the contractual arrangement was entered into through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal. Though the petitioner has placed on record a return statement evidencing deposit of EPF for the month of August 2025, uploaded on 10.10.2025, there is, prima facie, no corresponding material demonstrating compliance in respect of the subsequent period. The aforesaid aspect, therefore, requires proper verification during investigation.

The submission that the case is founded essentially upon documentary evidence and that the relevant documents are already in possession of the investigating agency, and consequently custodial interrogation is unnecessary, also cannot be accepted in isolation. The question is not merely of recovery of documents, but of ascertaining the circumstances in which the alleged fabricated Bank Guarantee came into existence, its source and preparation, the manner in which it was procured and furnished, and the identity and role of persons, if any, who may have facilitated its creation or use.

The allegations against the petitioner, therefore, do not remain confined to a simple contractual or commercial dispute. The gravamen of the accusation is that a Performance Bank Guarantee of ₹83,36,851/-, purportedly issued by a banking institution, was furnished as a security for performance of the contract, but was subsequently found, upon verification, to be fabricated. An allegation involving fabrication and use of a banking instrument cannot be viewed as a mere infraction of contractual terms, as it potentially bears upon the integrity and credibility of banking and commercial transactions. The investigation consequently requires to ascertain not only the petitioner's individual role, but also the possible involvement of other persons in the procurement, preparation and utilisation of the alleged forged instrument.

At the stage of consideration of a prayer for anticipatory bail, this Court is required to balance the petitioner's right to personal liberty against the legitimate requirement of an effective and unhindered investigation. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the possibility of custodial interrogation cannot be ruled out merely on the ground that the case is documentary in nature. The investigating agency is required to trace the genesis of the alleged fabricated Bank Guarantee, ascertain its source and modus operandi, confront the petitioner with the relevant material and determine whether any other persons were involved in the alleged transaction. These investigative requirements, coupled with the nature and magnitude of the alleged financial instrument and the allegations regarding non-compliance with statutory obligations towards a large number of workers, constitute circumstances weighing against the grant of the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Thus, without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the prosecution case or the culpability of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting protection under the extraordinary jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail. The nature of the allegations, the alleged fabrication of the Performance Bank Guarantee, the necessity of ascertaining its source and the possible involvement of other persons, and the requirement of a fair, effective and comprehensive investigation cumulatively persuade this Court to decline the concession of pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present prayer for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be adjudicated by the competent Court in accordance with law.

In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof.