SYNOPSIS

That the instant Special Leave Petition is being preferred by

the Petitioner against the final order dated ………………………….

passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, in Bail

Application No. ………………………. of 2017, by which the Hon’ble

High Court has dismissed the said Application thereby

rejecting the bail to the Petitioner herein.

The instant Petition raises a substantial question much less a

question of general public importance as to whether the

Hon’ble High Court is justified in rejecting the bail to the

Petitioner herein whereas the other accused in the same FIR

have already been granted bail ?

The Petitioner herein is accused No. ……….. in FIR No.200

dated 14.06.2016 registered at P.S. Neemrana, Behror,

District Alwar, Rajasthan, under Sections

408/420/467/468/471/120-B of the I.P.C. The said FIR was

registered on the basis of the fourth complaint lodged by the

complainant in respect of the very same offence alleged to

have been committed by the Petitioner herein. The allegation

against the Petitioner herein is cheating and misuse of funds

in connivance with other accused persons. In the earlier FIRs,

the Petitioner was not found with any guilty of the charges

leveled against him. Further, in one of the FIRs registered for

the very same offence as that of the present case, the matter
was compromised between the complainant and the accused

herein and, accordingly, a final report was also filed by the

Police to the said effect. Moreover, the complainant has also

filed an Affidavit stating that the dispute between the

complainant and the accused have been settled and there is

nothing to be prosecuted against the accused persons, on the

basis of which the other accused have already been granted

bail in the instant case. Despite the aforesaid facts, the

Hon’ble High Court declined to grant bail to the Petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate the fact that

rejection of bail to the Petitioner herein is in violation of

principles of equity and the same would amount to a grave

miscarriage of justice, when the other accused in the same

case have been granted bail earlier.

It is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioner herein is

an Army personnel who has unblemished record throughout

his life. He has been implicated in the present case by virtue

of some personal animosity felt by the complainants only to

exert undue pressures on him. Otherwise, the Petitioner

herein has nothing to do with the alleged offence. But,

unfortunately, the Courts below have failed to appreciate the

aforesaid fact at the time of considering bail to the Petitioner.

Hence, the Petitioner has preferred the present Special Leave

Petition seeking bail at the hands of this Hon’ble Court, in the

interest of justice and equity.

 LIST OF DATES

1997 The brother of the Petitioner herein and co-

accused, namely Mr. Chhetrapal Sharma, was

stated to have been working as an

Accountant in complainant’s Firm in the year

1997.

April, 2014 It was further alleged that the Petitioner

herein used to maintain the account books of

the Company and other financial documents.

In April, 2014, the Petitioner left the said

Company of the complainant.

2014 It was shock and surprise to the Petitioner to

know of the FIR No.220 registered by the

complainant at P.S. Nimrana, alleging that

the Petitioner alongwith his brother and

brother’s wife and other persons, has

committed fraud and cheated around 50

lakhs Rupees from the account of the

complainant.

(date be given) However, the said matter was compromised

between the parties before Police and the

complainant therein executed an Affidavit

thereby stating that matter has been settled

 and nothing is left between the parties.

Accordingly, an application was also made for

closing the said FIR to the Police concerned.

It is relevant to mention here that, in view of

the aforesaid settlement, some properties

were transferred in favour of the complainant

and his wife and an amount Equivalent to

Rs.9,50,000.00 was also paid to the

complainants.

31.10.2014 Subsequent to the settlement between the

parties, the Police filed final report No.386 of

2014 dated 31.10.2014 in FIR No.220/2014

before the learned Judge and, accordingly,

the matter was closed as being of civil

nature. Further, in the said FIR, nothing was

found against the Petitioner herein to the

extent that even he was not called for

investigation despite being clearly named.

30.03.2015 While the matter stood thus, the

complainants, feeling dissatisfied with the

compromise and having ulterior motive to

harass the Petitioner, lodged FIR No.161

dated 30.03.2015 with Police Station,

Mayapuri, New Delhi, making the same

 allegations as raised in the previous FIRs. It

is submitted that lodging same FIR on the

basis of same allegations is sheer abuse of

process of law.

03.07.2015 The complainant’s husband, namely Mr.

Deepchand, was not satisfied with the earlier

two FIRs and lodged the third complaint

against the Petitioner for the very same

offence and allegations in FIR No.460 on

03.07.2015 with P.S. Sector-10, Gurgaon.

14.06.2016 While the aforesaid two FIRs were under

investigation, the complainant again came

with FIR No.200 dated 14.06.2016 registered

at P.S. Neemrana, Behror, District Alwar,

Rajasthan, against the Petitioner for the very

same charges and offences, which were

already leveled in earlier two FIRs.

It appears, the complainant chose to lodge

complaints against the Petitioner one after

one for the same offence, only with a view to

harass the Petitioner and to extract some

monetary benefit out of the same.

16,01,2017 Charge-sheet No.01/17 Dated 16.01.2017

was filed by the Police under section

420/408/120B IPC against the Petitioner. It

is relevant to point out that no offence was

found under Section 467/468/471 against the

Petitioner herein.

2017 The Petitioner, after the filing of the charge-

sheet dated 16.01.2017, moved an

Application seeking bail in respect of FIR

No.200/2016.

31.01.2017 The learned Magistrate, without considering

the fact that the charge-sheet has already

been filed and there is no point in keeping the

Petitioner in custody, dismissed the said

Application. Further, the learned Magistrate

also failed to appreciate that the Petitioner

has already been granted bail in all the

previous FIRs. Further, the learned

Magistrate, while rejecting bail to the

Petitioner herein, has completely ignored the

fact that the co-accused in the very same FIR

has been granted bail earlier.

2017 Being aggrieved of the order of the learned

Magistrate, the Petitioner preferred Bail

 Application No. …………….. of 2017 before the

High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said

Bail Application filed by the Petitioner herein.

15.04.2017 The Special Leave Petition is filed.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(ORDER XXII RULE 2)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2017

POSITION OF PARTIES BEFORE

Trial Court High Court This Court

BETWEEN
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
S/o Mr. Daya Ram Sharma,
R/o. House No.786,
Sector 10-A,
Gurgaon-122001,
Haryana. Accused No.2 Applicant Petitioner

AND

State of Rajasthan
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Home,
State Secretariat Building Contesting
Jaipur, Rajasthan. Prosecution Respondent Respondent

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. That the Petitioner, by this Petition, is seeking special

leave to appeal before this Hon’ble Court against the

final order dated ………………… passed by the High Court

of Rajasthan at Jaipur, in Bail Application No. …………. Of

2017, by which the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed

the said Application for bail filed by the Petitioner herein.

2. QUESTION OF LAW

The following substantial questions of law of general

public importance arise for consideration before this

Hon’ble Court :

A. Whether the Hon’ble High Court is justified in rejecting

the bail to the Petitioner herein whereas the other

accused persons in the same FIR have already been

granted bail ?

B. Whether the Hon’ble High Court is in error in declining

the bail to the Petitioner even after the filing of the

charge-sheet, despite the other accused were granted

bail earlier ?

C. Whether the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate

the fact that rejection of bail to the Petitioner herein is in

violation of principles of equity and the same would

amount to a grave miscarriage of justice, when the

other accused in the same case have been granted bail

earlier ?

D. Whether the Courts below have failed to consider that

the Police have completed their investigation and the

charge-sheet has also been filed by them, and now

there is no requirement of the Petitioner for custodial

interrogation ?
E. Whether the Courts below, while declining to grant bail

to the Petitioner, have failed to appreciate the fact that

all the witnesses are Police officials or formal Police

witnesses and there is no scope of the Petitioner

influencing the witnesses at this stage ?

F. Whether the Courts below have failed to appreciate the

fact that the complainants had settled all disputes

regarding monetary transactions with the Petitioner

wherein some properties were transferred by way of

execution of sale deed in the name of the complainant

and, in spite of the same, the complainants, with an

ulterior motive and undue gain by the Petitioner, chose

to lodge series of complaints against him for the very

same offence at different places ?

G. Whether the Courts below have failed to notice that the

modus of lodging series of FIRs is being used by the

complainants only to blackmail and fleece the Petitioner

and his family out of sheer vendetta and malice ?

H. Whether the orders of the Courts below are legally

unsustainable, especially keeping in view the facts and

submissions made in this Petition ?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2(3)

 The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave

to appeal has been filed by him against the final order

dated ………………. passed by the High Court of Rajasthan

at Jaipur, in Bail Application No. …………. of 2017.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2(4)

That Annexure-P1 to P produced along with the

Special Leave Petition are true copies of the documents

which formed part of the records of the case in the Court

below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought

for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS

The Petitioner is desirous of filing the present Special

Leave Petition on the following amongst other –

A. Because the Hon’ble High Court is not justified in

rejecting the bail to the Petitioner herein whereas the

other accused persons in the same FIR have already

been granted bail.

B. Because the Hon’ble High Court is in error in declining

the bail to the Petitioner even after the filing of the

charge-sheet, despite the other accused were granted

bail earlier.
C. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate

the fact that rejection of bail to the Petitioner herein is in

violation of principles of equity and the same would

amount to a grave miscarriage of justice, when the

other accused in the same case have been granted bail

earlier.

D. Because the Police have completed their investigation

and the charge-sheet has also been filed by them. Now,

there is no requirement of the Petitioner for custodial

interrogation who has divulged all the facts and

circumstances of the case.

E. Because the Courts below have failed to appreciate the

fact that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner

are to be proved by way of trial and no custodial

interrogation is required as the entire alleged

transactions are through cheques and the signatures

thereon. Therefore, the Courts below should have

granted bail to the Petitioner.

F. Because the Petitioner has, prima facie, a good case on

merits and is likely to succeed in the trial, as the

complainant alleged the offence against the Petitioner in

respect of the very same cheques in multiple FIRs at

different places.
G. Because the trial of the case shall take a long time and

keeping the accused in custody shall be violative of the

fundamental principle of right to liberty and there is no

reason why the applicant should suffer in jail unless the

offence alleged have been proved against him.

H. Because the Courts below, while declining to grant bail

to the Petitioner, have failed to appreciate the fact that

all the witnesses are PoliceP officials or formal Police

witnesses and there is no scope of the Petitioner

influencing the witnesses at this stage.

I. Because the complainants had settled all disputes

regarding monetary transactions with the Petitioner

wherein some properties were transferred by way of

execution of sale deed in the name of the complainant.

In spite of the same, the complainants, with an ulterior

motive and undue gain by the Petitioner, chose to lodge

series of complaints against him for the very same

offence at different places. But, unfortunately, the

Courts below have failed to take serious note of the ill-

motive behind the lodging of the said FIRs, which

resulted in rejection of bail to the Petitioner herein.

J. Because the instant FIR refers to cheques alleged to

have been encashed through Maya Puri account,

pertaining to which the FIR No.161/2015 is already

 pending and, in fact, the complainant has sought for

further investigation in the said case.

K. Because the modus of lodging series of FIRs is being

used by the complainants only to blackmail and fleece

the Petitioner and his family out of sheer vendetta and

malice.

L. Because the complainant has not explained as to in

which manner the cheques in question were misused by

the Petitioner. Further, there is a delay of about 3 years

in filing the present FIR, while the complainant has been

filing his income tax returns every year and such a large

amount of money could not have escaped his attention.

M. Because the charge-sheet has been wrongly filed under

section 408/420 of IPC as any one of those Sections

could have been invoked, as the Petitioner had no direct

relationship with the complainant and the complainant

has himself shown a loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to

the Petitioner in his book of accounts.

N. Because the impugned order of the High Court is legally

unsustainable, especially keeping in view the facts and

submissions made in this Petition.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

A. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has a

good case on merits and is likely to succeed before this

Hon’ble Court. The balance of convenience is also in

favour of the Petitioner.

B. It is most respectfully and humbly submitted that the

Petitioner herein is an Army personnel who has

unblemished record throughout his life. He has been

implicated in the present case by virtue of some

personal animosity felt by the complainants only to exert

undue pressures on him. Otherwise, the Petitioner

herein has nothing to do with the alleged offence. But,

unfortunately, the Courts below have failed to

appreciate the aforesaid fact at the time of considering

bail to the Petitioner.

C. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is ready and

willing to abide by any terms and conditions that may be

imposed by this Hon’ble Court for granting him bail.

Therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the

Petitioner be granted bail at the hands of this Hon’ble

Court.

7. MAIN PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :

a) grant special leave to appeal to the Petitioner against

the final order dated …………….. passed by the High Court

of Rajasthan at Jaipur, in Bail Application No. …………. of

2017 ; and

b) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper under the facts and

circumstances of the case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :

a) grant bail to the Petitioner during the pendency of the

present Special Leave Petition before this Hon’ble Court;

and

b) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper under the facts and

circumstances of the case.

DRAWN BY FILED BY

( ) ( )
Advocate Advocate for the Petitioner

New Delhi
Drawn On:
Filed On: