1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.490 dated 23.12.2025, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338 of BNS, 2023 at Police Station City, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant, namely, Deepika Atrish. It was alleged that the complainant is the franchise owner of Lal Path Lab, Sector-2 and about 4.5 years ago, she hired Ishwar Singh (petitioner) as a Lab Technician at a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Ishwar Singh used to handle all the reports, samples, and money transactions with patients. Over a period of time, he started handling all the work of lab and changed all the passwords as well. He used to prepare a fake ledger every day, show it to the complainant, and get her to sign it. On asking of the complainant about low income and high expenses, she was shown the same fake account. Upon suspicion, the complainant, on 01.09.2025, obtained the lab ledger from Mr. Manoj, Sales Representative of the main branch, and allegedly found misappropriation of approximately Rs.2,81,969/- from the period from 01 10.2024 to 31.08.2025 and further discrepancies yet to be calculated. The complainant attached all the proof with the complaint. Thus, on the basis of the complainant, FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad praying for grant of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the side, learned Court declined the same, vide order dated 05.01.2026. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner had been working with the complainant since 2022 as a Lab Technician and had been diligently performing his duties. However, it is only after the petitioner expressed his desire not to continue with the complainant’s lab, the complaint was filed. He submits that the petitioner himself filed the reply to the complaint on 02.09.2025 by conceding that the complainant often delayed payment of his salary. Owing to compelling circumstances, the petitioner intermittently utilized an amount of approximately Rs.50,000/- from the lab collections for the medical treatment of his mother, which was duly informed to the complainant and her husband. He submits that admittedly, the dispute relates to financial transactions at the lab and the same pertains to documentary evidence. It is contended that the alleged forged ledgers were at all times in the possession and control of the complainant herself, and the petitioner neither had any authority nor dominion over the accounts, final ledger, or business data systems. It is thus argued that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner are not made out, and the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has placed on record the summary of invoice of the lab pertaining to the amounts received from patients, which demonstrate that the payments collected from the patients differ from the entries shown in the register. He submits that the accused-petitioner has been indulging in such acts of cheating since 2021, and that the complete data for all the relevant years has been placed on record. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner cheated the complainant with an amount of Rs.8,18,960/- on the basis of fake ledger account and by showing wrong entries and his custodial interrogation is required to recover the money for obtaining specimen signature and to unearth the role of any other accused in the offence. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was working as a Lab Technician with the complainant. The allegation against him is that he prepared fabricated ledger accounts to justify false entries made in the daily patient register and misappropriated an amount of Rs.8,18,960/-. It is alleged that the petitioner showed a lesser number of patients for sample collection than the actual figures; reflected a lesser amount as received from patients, and forged the signatures of the complainant to show her acknowledgment of the said ledger accounts. The petitioner conceded about Rs.50,000/- taken from the collection of the lab, whereas, misappropriated amount is Rs.8,18,960/-. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the amount and also the role of any other accused involved in the present case. Investigation in the present case is at the initial stage.

6. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as under:-

                   482“Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:

                   1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

                   2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-

                   (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

                   (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

                   (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

                   (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.”

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State represented by CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 has held as under:-

                   “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

8. Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has time and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances.

9. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie established. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation.

10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

11. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.