Legal Review and Analysis of Salil Mahajan vs Avinash Kumar & Anr 2025 INSC 1396
Case Synopsis
Salil Mahajan vs. Avinash Kumar & Anr., 2025 INSC 1396.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court set aside an anticipatory bail order, emphasizing that courts must consider investigation reports and the accused’s conduct, and that custodial interrogation may be necessary even after chargesheet filing for a fair investigation.
Anticipatory Bail Overturned: Supreme Court Stresses Scrutiny of Investigation Reports and Accused Conduct.
1. Judgment Heading
Salil Mahajan vs. Avinash Kumar & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 5313 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7275 of 2025), Supreme Court of India, Decided on December 08, 2025.
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
2. Related Laws and Sections
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 482 (inherent powers of the High Court, akin to Section 482 CrPC 1973).
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): Sections 316(4) (criminal breach of trust), 344 (wrongful confinement), 61(2) (punishment for certain offences).
3. Basic Judgment Details
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Salil Mahajan (complainant), lodged an FIR on 25th November 2024 alleging that the accused, Avinash Kumar, a senior accountant, embezzled over ₹3 crores from Amandeep Healthcare Private Limited.
The accused’s anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 21st February 2025. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted him anticipatory bail on 2nd April 2025 under Section 482 BNSS.
The complainant and the State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s bail order was erroneous, ignored the need for custodial interrogation, and failed to consider the accused’s conduct (being “on the run”).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail suffered from non-application of mind and perversity.
Whether the High Court erred in ignoring relevant material, such as the investigation status report highlighting the need for custodial interrogation and the accused’s conduct.
The appropriate legal grounds for interfering with an order granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi (Court’s Reasoning)
The Supreme Court reiterated the distinction between an appeal against the grant of bail and an application for cancellation of bail, as summarized in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC Online SC 1690. An appellate court can interfere on grounds of perversity, illegality, non-consideration of relevant factors, or inconsistency with law.
Citing Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518, the Court emphasized that bail can be revoked if the court ignores relevant material, considers irrelevant factors, or overlooks the gravity of the offence, the accused’s conduct, and societal impact.
The High Court’s order was found defective as it mechanically granted bail without assessing the investigation status report, which explicitly stated the accused was “on the run” and that custodial interrogation was necessary for a fair investigation and recovery of embezzled funds.
The High Court’s reasoning that the accused had returned half the amount and was willing to declare assets was insufficient, as it overlooked his alleged conduct and the investigation’s stage.
The Supreme Court held that the filing of a chargesheet does not automatically negate the need for custodial interrogation if the accused’s conduct and investigation necessities warrant it.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
Title: Judicial Scrutiny in Grant of Anticipatory Bail: Necessity of Considering Investigation Reports and Accused Conduct
Main Issue Addressed
The Supreme Court addressed whether a superior court can interfere with an anticipatory bail order when the lower court fails to consider critical investigation inputs, such as the accused’s conduct and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair investigation.
Analysis and Explanation
The judgment reinforces the following principles:
Duty of Application of Mind: Courts must demonstrate active consideration of all relevant materials, especially investigation reports, while granting bail. The High Court’s failure to reference the status report—which highlighted the accused’s evasion and need for interrogation—rendered its order legally untenable.
Grounds for Interference in Bail Orders: As per Ashok Dhankad, an appellate court may set aside a bail order on grounds of perversity, illegality, or non-consideration of relevant factors like the gravity of the offence and the accused’s conduct. The High Court ignored the accused’s conduct (“on the run”) and the investigation agency’s request for custodial interrogation.
Anticipatory Bail is Extraordinary Relief: The Court cited Vipan Kumar Dhir to reiterate that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, and courts must consider the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses, fleeing justice, or obstructing investigation. The High Court’s order did not reflect this caution.
Custodial Interrogation Post-Chargesheet: The Court clarified that the filing of a chargesheet does not ipso facto eliminate the need for custodial interrogation if the investigation requires it for recovery of proceeds or uncovering accomplices.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s bail order, and directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks. The accused may apply for regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits.
5. MCQs Based on the Judgment
1. In Salil Mahajan vs. Avinash Kumar, on what primary ground did the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s anticipatory bail order?
A) The accused was a juvenile.
B) The High Court failed to consider the investigation status report highlighting the accused’s conduct and need for custodial interrogation.
C) The FIR was lodged with malicious intent.
D) The amount embezzled was less than ₹1 crore.
2. According to the Supreme Court, which of the following is a valid ground for interfering with an order granting bail?
A) The accused belongs to a wealthy family.
B) The bail order ignores relevant material, such as an investigation report indicating the accused is evading arrest.
C) The offence is bailable.
D) The complainant is politically influential.