Sunita Devi & Another vs. State of Haryana: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Land Fraud Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated December 2, 2022, in the case of Sunita Devi & Another vs. State of Haryana, addressed the issue of anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of cheating related to land transactions. The court overturned the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision, granting bail to the appellants while emphasizing the importance of cooperation in the investigation.

The case revolves around allegations that the petitioners were involved in fraudulent land transactions, leading to financial losses for certain parties. As a result, criminal proceedings were initiated against them by the State of Haryana, and their pleas for anticipatory bail were rejected at the High Court level. The Supreme Court’s ruling provided relief to the appellants but set conditions to ensure that the investigation could proceed unhindered.

Background of the Case

The appellants, Sunita Devi and another, were accused of engaging in fraudulent land transactions. The allegations primarily revolved around cheating in connection with the sale and purchase of land, which allegedly involved misrepresentation and deceit. The prosecution claimed that the appellants had entered into fraudulent transactions, causing financial harm to other parties involved.

The case was initially heard by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, where the appellants had sought anticipatory bail, fearing arrest. However, their plea was rejected on July 1, 2021, in CRM-M No. 51648/2019. Following this, the appellants filed a recall petition to reconsider the dismissal of their anticipatory bail plea, but this too was declined on September 17, 2021, in CRM No. 29904/2021. With no relief from the High Court, they approached the Supreme Court, seeking protection from arrest.

Legal Issues and Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, represented by their legal counsel, contended that:

They had already joined the investigation and were cooperating with the authorities.
The nature of the allegations did not warrant custodial interrogation.
They had no intention of evading the investigation, and their presence was available whenever required.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court had failed to appreciate the fact that they were not flight risks.
There was no strong prima facie evidence against them necessitating their arrest.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Haryana, represented by its legal counsel, countered the petitioners’ arguments by asserting:

The case involved serious allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in land dealings.
The involvement of the accused required a deeper investigation, which might be hindered if they were not in custody.
The custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover additional details and potential accomplices.
Granting bail at this stage could impede the progress of the investigation.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the case records and the submissions made by both parties before arriving at its decision. The court observed that the appellants had already joined the investigation and that there was no immediate requirement for their custodial interrogation.

The Supreme Court stated:

“It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that both of them have joined the investigation.”
“Learned counsel for the State also does not dispute this.”
“The offenses alleged against the appellants primarily relate to cheating in connection with certain land-related transactions.”
“In such circumstances, in our opinion, in the event the appellants cooperate with the Investigating Agency, custodial interrogation would not be necessary at this stage.”

The Supreme Court further stated that while anticipatory bail was being granted, the petitioners were expected to continue cooperating with the investigation. Should they fail to do so at any stage, the State would have the right to seek cancellation of bail from the trial court.

Judgment and Ruling

After considering all arguments and evidence, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants and granted them bail. The key points of the ruling were:

The appellants shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to conditions set by the trial court.
They must continue to cooperate with the investigating agency.
If at any stage they refuse to cooperate, the State may approach the trial court for cancellation of bail.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant in multiple ways. It sets an important precedent for cases involving anticipatory bail and demonstrates that:

Courts must evaluate the necessity of custodial interrogation before denying bail.
If an accused person is cooperating with the investigation, their right to liberty should be considered.
Bail can be granted while ensuring that the accused do not evade the legal process.

The ruling provides clarity on how courts should handle anticipatory bail applications in cases where the nature of the offense does not demand immediate custodial interrogation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Sunita Devi & Another vs. State of Haryana reaffirms the principle that bail should not be denied arbitrarily. While serious allegations were made, the Court recognized the appellants’ cooperation in the investigation and determined that their custodial interrogation was unnecessary at that stage. The judgment balances the rights of the accused with the need for a fair and transparent investigation, ensuring that justice is served while upholding legal principles.

This ruling will serve as an essential reference in future cases where anticipatory bail is sought, particularly in financial fraud and land dispute cases.

Petitioner Name: Sunita Devi & Another.
Respondent Name: State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 02-12-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: sunita-devi-&-anothe-vs-state-of-haryana-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-12-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in Judgment by Sudhanshu Dhulia
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category