Jagbir Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioners, Jagbir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, and Shubham, filed petitions under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. They are accused in FIR No. 260, dated 22.08.2025, registered at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala City, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were employed as Assistant Accountant, Chief Accountant, and RC maker in a firm's branch at Ambala. They contended that all bills were signed and approved by the complainant, and an audit was conducted. They also claimed a compromise was reached before the FIR was filed, which relates to bills from 2022 to 2025. The petitioners were terminated on 31.03.2025. They alleged being implicated due to a GST complaint filed by them against the complainant. A Coordinate Bench had previously ordered no coercive action against them.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail petitions and made the interim bail order absolute. The Court noted that the petitioners had joined the investigation and fully cooperated with the investigating agency, as affirmed by the State counsel. The State counsel also confirmed that the petitioners were not required for further custodial interrogation. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, granted anticipatory bail subject to the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. It was clarified that if the petitioners failed to cooperate with the investigating agency in the future, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail. No specific issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of offences under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that they were merely employees and all financial transactions were approved by the complainant. They highlighted that a compromise had been reached prior to the FIR registration and that the FIR was filed after a GST complaint they had lodged against the complainant, suggesting malicious implication. They also pointed out that they had been terminated from service and were ready to cooperate with the investigation. They relied on the previous order granting interim protection. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, affirmed that the petitioners had joined the investigation and cooperated fully. They stated that custodial interrogation was not required at that stage.