Dinesh Kumar Bansal vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Bansal, filed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 37 dated 23.07.2025, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Patiala. The FIR pertains to alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case arose from an inquiry report concerning the Panchayat funds of village Nalas Khurd. During the period 2019-2022, the Sarpanch and Panches allegedly received substantial funds, including Rs. 58.43 crores from the predecessor and Rs. 7.50 crores from other sources. While expenditures of Rs. 32,20,59,348/- were incurred on development works, bills and vouchers totaling Rs. 26,96,33,614/- were generated. Specifically, Rs. 6,03,95,167/- was for material and labour, signed by the Sarpanch. A financial loss of Rs. 3,61,09,454/- was found in stadium construction. The petitioner is accused of generating fake bills for a furnace and related works for Rs. 43,32,883/- for which no furnace was installed, causing a loss to public funds.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The primary issue revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in generating fake bills and receiving payments from Panchayat funds without supplying the material for the construction of the crematorium/furnace. While the petitioner denied these allegations and claimed to have executed the work and paid GST, the Court found no evidence on record to show that the material for which bills were generated was secured from any other source or that payments were made to such suppliers. The Court concluded that, prima facie, the petitioner, who did not claim to be the manufacturer, generated fake bills. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner was deemed of paramount importance to crystallize the facts and fix his role in the commission of the offence. The Court reiterated the principle that custodial interrogation is a valuable right of the investigating agency and should not be denied unless there are exceptional circumstances. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and exceptional remedy to be exercised sparingly and judiciously, not as a matter of routine. Given the serious allegations and the fact that similarly placed co-accused were denied anticipatory bail, the Court found no valid ground to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of generating fake bills and embezzling public funds? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he is innocent and falsely implicated, having no nexus with the alleged crime. He claims to be merely a contractor who executed the construction work for the crematorium, generated genuine bills, and paid GST. He argues that co-accused Mohan Lal, Amarjit Kumar, and Surinder Singh have been granted regular bail, and he is being unnecessarily harassed. Respondent's (State) Arguments: The State argues that the facts are not as projected by the petitioner. They contend the petitioner was actively involved in generating fake bills to embezzle public funds, conniving with the Sarpanch and Panches, and creating false documents. The State emphasizes that custodial interrogation is crucial to ascertain the source of material procured by the petitioner, as he claims to have generated genuine bills. They also point out that co-accused Mohan Lal and Munshi Ram were denied anticipatory bail on similar grounds.