Jitender vs State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.236 dated 13.07.2026 registered under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.

As per the allegations, the complainant Ankit was running Changiya Filling Station situated near B.K. School on Bhiwani-Bawani Khera Road. The petitioner-Jitender @ Vikas was working as Manager at the said petrol pump for the last about four years. The complainant's father used to supervise the petrol pump and had complete faith in the petitioner. Due to an accident suffered by the complainant's father, the complainant himself started visiting the petrol pump. Upon checking the accounts of the petrol pump, he suspected embezzlement by the petitioner. Thereafter, for 2-3 days, the complainant could not visit the petrol pump due to personal engagements and during that period, the petitioner allegedly absconded from the petrol pump with cash amounting to approximately Rs.10,00,000/-. When the account books were shown to the accountant, embezzlement to the tune of Rs.1,08,00,000/-, including the aforesaid cash amount, came to light. It is further alleged that upon investigation, it was found that the petitioner, in connivance with an engineer/expert of the petrol machine company, used to tamper with the totalizer meter reading of the petrol dispensing machine and thereby embezzled diesel without the knowledge of the owner. On the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR has been registered against the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled in the FIR are baseless. The entire case is based upon documentary evidence which is already in the possession of the investigating agency. He has clean antecedents. He is ready to join the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. His custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. For the purpose of effecting recovery and for conducting thorough investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstance has been made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

The petitioner is alleged to have been working as Manager at the petrol pump and to have misappropriated a substantial amount of money. Apart from the allegation regarding cash amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- the audit is stated to have revealed an embezzlement of approximately Rs.1,08,00,000/-. The allegations in the FIR are specific in nature. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled that powers for grant of anticipatory bail are to be exercised in exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances. However, in the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.