Davinder Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Davinder Singh, seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 80 dated 26.04.2025, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana. The FIR was based on a complaint by Slochanbir Singh, Director of Pioneer Cranes @ Elevators Pvt. Ltd., alleging that the petitioner, while working as Manager for 27 years, committed theft of oil and diesel, misappropriated company material, and caused financial loss by issuing fake slips for job work and purchasing grocery items for personal use using company funds. The dispute involves alleged financial loss of Rs. 8,12,570/- for grocery items and other losses from fake job work slips between 28.08.2022 and 29.08.2024. The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 14.05.2025.

Held

The Court held that the allegations made against the petitioner, including causing wrongful loss to the tune of a huge amount of money and committing forgery by preparing false documents, prima facie establish a case for the commission of the subject offences. The case is at its nascent stage, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is deemed necessary for a thorough and proper investigation. Denying custodial interrogation would leave significant gaps in the investigation. The Court reiterated that powers under Section 482 of BNSS are extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances, requiring careful consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice, and other factors. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of anticipatory bail in this case, concluding that the petition did not deserve to be allowed. The observations made are solely for deciding the petition and do not express an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, concerning Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, prima facie establish a case against the petitioner warranting denial of anticipatory bail? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, having left his job for a better offer. He claims he was not solely responsible for financial dealings, as Senior Managers and Accountants handled accounts. His role was limited to overseeing labourers, and he had no direct access to monetary transactions. He alleges he was manhandled by employees with grudges and falsely implicated. The dispute is civil in nature, given a criminal colour, and his custodial interrogation is unnecessary as no recovery is to be made. Respondent's arguments: The State, assisted by the complainant's counsel, argues that serious and specific allegations of financial loss, unauthorized purchases, charging additional fuel costs, sending raw material out on fake slips without GST challans, and preparing forged documents have been made against the petitioner. They assert that custodial interrogation is essential for a thorough investigation, and no exceptional circumstances justify anticipatory bail.