CRM-M-26123-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 162+224 CRM-M-26123-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 18.08.2026 SUNIL KHAJURIA ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Ms. Ravisha Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. The instant 2nd petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Sunil Khajuria, aged about 58 years 26 27.02.2024 420, 406, 32 of IPC (sections 318, 316, 3(2) of BNS) [sections 409 and 120-B of IPC added later on] E- Division Police Commissio nerate, Amritsar LAVISHA 2026.08.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-26123-2026 (O&M) 2 (correspondin g to sections 316(5), 61(2) of BNS) 2. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, petitioner-Sunil Khajuria was working as Cash Manager in J&K Bank, whereas co- accused Rakesh Kumar Bakshi and Amit Gupta were working as Assistant Cashiers. Co-accused were stated to be maintaining the accounts relating to cash transactions in the Bank, while the keys to the strong room were also stated to remain with the petitioner-Sunil Khajuria and co-accused Rakesh Kumar Bakshi. 3. On 17.02.2024, Subhash Chander, Branch Head Manager, conducted a surprise checking of the cash lying in the Bank's safe, whereupon a shortage of Rs.2,04,57,209/- was detected. Thereafter, a written statement was executed by co-accused Rakesh Kumar Bakshi and Amit Gupta before the Branch Manager and the Bank's Investigation Team, wherein both of them allegedly admitted that they had fraudulently retained the cash amount with them. Subsequently, both the co-accused deposited an amount of Rs.19,25,000/- on 19.02.2024, Rs.2,00,000/- on 21.02.2024 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 22.02.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that guilt has already been confessed/admitted in writing by co-accused Amit Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Bakshi before the Branch Manager and the Investigating Officer, vide their statements/confessions placed on record as Annexures P-2 to P-4. It is further submitted that, after depositing the LAVISHA 2026.08.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-26123-2026 (O&M) 3 amounts attributable to their respective shares, both the said co-accused were granted the concession of bail by this Court, vide orders dated 17.03.2026 (passed in CRR-2076-2025), and 28.04.2026 (passed in CRM-M-58948-2025) [Annexures P-9 and P-10, respectively]. Learned counsel further submits that, during the course of investigation, as well as in the departmental inquiry, no material or circumstance has emerged to show that petitioner, either directly or indirectly, was the beneficiary or gainer of the alleged financial irregularity/misappropriation. 5. It is further pointed out that the Central Enquiry Department also conducted an inquiry into the matter. Even in the said inquiry, there was neither any allegation nor any finding that petitioner had committed any offence of cheating or had played any fraud upon the Bank. Rather, in its report dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), Central Enquiry Department provisionally concluded the charges and imputations levelled against the CSO as under:- “i) Breach of rules of business of the Bank and instructions for running of a department: PROVED ii) Doing acts prejudicial to the interests of the bank and gross negligence likely to involve the bank in serious loss: PARTIALLY PROVED to the extent of being negligent and not getting the cash verified physically on regular basis.” LAVISHA 2026.08.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-26123-2026 (O&M) 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as per the show-cause notice dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, it was recorded that petitioner, being the Charge-Sheeted Officer (CSO), lacked the requisite capability to safeguard the interests of the Bank while discharging his duties. Accordingly, a provisional conclusion was arrived at to call upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be reverted to the cadre of Banking Associate. On the strength of the aforesaid show-cause notice, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, when the Bank's own internal mechanism, including the inquiry conducted by the Central Enquiry Department, has neither attributed any financial gain to the petitioner nor alleged that he personally benefited from the alleged misappropriation, the case against the petitioner, at the highest, pertains to negligence or failure to properly discharge his duties while posted in the Bank. It is, therefore, contended that petitioner cannot be denied the concession of bail merely on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations. Thus, counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner cannot be absolved of his responsibility merely because no direct financial gain has been attributed to him. It is argued that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates his connivance with the other co- accused. LAVISHA 2026.08.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-26123-2026 (O&M) 5 Learned State counsel further submits that allegations are serious in nature, as the accused persons allegedly succeeded in defrauding the Bank and caused a loss of Rs.2,37,79,410/-, involving public money. It is, therefore, contended that no sympathetic view ought to be taken in favour of the petitioner and the concession of bail should not be extended to him. 8. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the record available on file. 9. During the course of hearing, learned State counsel could not point out any material showing that petitioner had derived any direct or indirect financial gain from the alleged transaction. Thus, whether there is any direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged misappropriation, either independently or in connivance with the other accused, would be a matter to be examined and adjudicated upon by learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence led during the course of trial. It is also significant that the internal mechanism of the Bank, including inquiry conducted by the Central Enquiry Department, has not attributed any personal financial gain, dishonest intention or mens rea to the petitioner for committing fraud or cheating with the public money. Rather, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner proceed on the premise that he lacked the requisite capability to safeguard the interests of the Bank while discharging his duties, on the basis of which LAVISHA 2026.08.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-26123-2026 (O&M) 6 his proposed reversion to the cadre of Banking Associate was contemplated. Furthermore, petitioner is inside jail since 19.05.2025. Out of total 10 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. Thus, trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and is likely to take considerable time. 10. In view of the totality of the circumstances, nature of the allegations, material presently available on record, period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, and the fact that trial is yet to substantially progress, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 11. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 12. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. LAVISHA 2026.08.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-26123-2026 (O&M) 7 13. Petition stands disposed of. 14. Pending miscellaneous applications, shall also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 18.08.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO LAVISHA 2026.08.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh