Anticipatory Bail Denied in Economic Offence Involving Diversion of Goods: P&H HC Holds Custodial Interrogation Necessary
Case Name: Upkar @ Upkar Singh v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 23.04.2026
Citation: CRM-M-19924-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted sparingly, especially in economic offences involving conspiracy and misappropriation. Where prima facie material indicates involvement of the accused and custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the conspiracy and recover evidence, pre-arrest bail ought to be denied.
Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging misappropriation of a consignment of plastic granules weighing 3500 kg. The prosecution case was that the consignment, instead of being delivered to its intended destination, was diverted to a scrap dealer and subsequently reintroduced into the supply chain through manipulated transactions, constituting a fraudulent scheme.
It was alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused including the driver and other associates, acted in conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust and cheating. The involvement of the petitioner surfaced during investigation through disclosure statements and call detail records indicating communication with co-accused.
The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, was not named in the initial complaint, and that the case was based on hearsay and documentary evidence already in possession of the investigating agency. It was further contended that he had no control over transportation of goods and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The State opposed the bail plea, asserting that the petitioner, while working as a Store Keeper, misused his position to facilitate diversion of goods. It was argued that investigation was at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation was required to trace the money trail, recover forged documents, and identify other conspirators.
The Court, after considering the material on record, observed that the allegations were serious and pertained to an economic offence involving coordinated actions by multiple accused. It noted that the petitioner’s involvement, though emerging during investigation, was supported by disclosure statements and electronic evidence such as call detail records. The Court further held that the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation necessitated custodial interrogation.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, holding that no exceptional circumstances were made out to warrant grant of such relief. It was observed that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would impede effective investigation and hinder recovery of material evidence. The Court emphasised that the balance between individual liberty and societal interest must tilt in favour of a fair and thorough investigation in cases involving serious economic offences and alleged conspiracy.