Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail in ₹12 Crore Fake Work Orders Scam; Holds Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Corruption and Economic Offences
Case Name: Vishal Kaushik and Another v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 13 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-55330-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that anticipatory bail in cases involving serious allegations of corruption, forgery of public records and misappropriation of public funds is an extraordinary relief to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Court held that where allegations disclose a well-planned conspiracy resulting in huge loss to the public exchequer and custodial interrogation is required to trace the money trail, recover incriminating material and identify other beneficiaries, pre-arrest bail ought to be declined .
Summary: The petitioners approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 120-B, 166, 167, 201, 218, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR arose during investigation of an earlier vigilance case wherein it was discovered that thirteen fake work orders relating to laying of interlocking tiles were fraudulently prepared in the name of a contractor, despite no work having been executed.
As per the prosecution, original estimates amounting to approximately ₹72.75 lakh were illegally revised within a short span to about ₹12.18 crore. Verification of dispatch registers and official records revealed that the work orders were never issued by the competent municipal division and the dispatch numbers were forged. It was alleged that the petitioners, along with other officials of the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, abused their official positions, processed forged work orders, facilitated clearance of running bills and caused wrongful loss exceeding ₹12 crore to the public exchequer.
The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, that their role was merely clerical and procedural, that they had no authority over issuance of work orders or execution of works, and that the entire case was documentary in nature. It was also argued that they had already been granted anticipatory bail in earlier FIRs arising out of similar transactions and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the allegations disclosed a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy involving forgery of public records, manipulation of estimates and siphoning of public funds. It was argued that custodial interrogation was essential to ascertain the role of each accused, recover electronic and documentary evidence, trace the money trail and identify other beneficiaries. The State further submitted that the plea of multiple FIRs could not be examined at the anticipatory bail stage and that each FIR related to distinct forged work orders discovered at different stages of investigation.
The High Court held that economic offences and corruption cases are required to be viewed with greater circumspection while considering anticipatory bail. The Court observed that the petitioners were holding responsible public offices and were entrusted with powers directly impacting the decision-making process. At the pre-arrest stage, the contention that their role was merely clerical could not be accepted. Relying upon Supreme Court decisions including Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab and State v. Anil Sharma, the Court reiterated that custodial interrogation in corruption cases is often indispensable and anticipatory bail should not be granted where it may impede a fair and effective investigation.
Decision: The petition was dismissed. The High Court held that the petitioners did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in view of the seriousness of allegations, magnitude of loss to the public exchequer, the stage of investigation and the necessity of custodial interrogation.