The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed challenging the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court which had rejected the Anticipatory Bail Application of a man accused of duping innocent villagers of crores of rupees in Rohtak, Haryana.

The Vacation Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed the SLP and noted that "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order declining the petitioner’s prayer for bail. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed." Advocate-on-Record Anil Kumar along with Advocates Satyakam and Archit Kaushik appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner Ankit Sharma, accused of offences under Sections 406, 420, 34, 120-B Indian Penal Code (Sections 421, 422, 424 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak, had approached the Supreme Court seeking Anticipatory Bail after the Punjab and Haryana High Court had rejected the Bail application on merits.

In the impugned order, the High Court had observed that "Prima facie there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner of having colluded with the main accused Suresh Sharma and thereafter, cheated large number of innocent farmers, by inducing them to part with their hard-earned money on a false assurance of handsome returns, on the money given by them to the accused."

The High Court had also observed that "Fraud like the one in hand, which runs into approximate Rs.40 crores, seriously impacts the economic health of the country." It was submitted before the High Court that the Petitioner had joined the investigation and also cooperated with the investigating agency and also that totally vague and false allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR in question only because he is a relative of accused Suresh Sharma with whom the complainant had some money dispute.

On the other hand, the State had contended that more than 293 more farmers had approached the police with complaints against the petitioner and the other co-accused, who were still at large. The State also submitted that both the accused embezzled crores of rupees (Rs.40 crores approximately) of the complainant and other innocent villagers.

The High Court after considering the submissions observed that "Court concurs with the prayer made by the State that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required keeping in view the gravity and severity of the offences alleged. Further, there is every likelihood of the petitioner absconding the process of law if he is extended the concession of anticipatory bail, more so, when all the other accused are on the run."

Finding no grounds to interfere with the order of the High Court, the Apex Court refused to entertain the matter and accordingly dismissed the plea.

Cause Title: Ankit Sharma v. State of Haryana [SLP(Crl.) No(s).7038/2023]

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Dipankar DattaJustice Pankaj MithalFraud

Ramey Krishan Rana