2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10285
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEENA THAPA – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
SLP(Crl) No.-004928 - 2024
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
4928/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-03-2024 in C482 No. 316/2024 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital]
HEENA THAPA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH SLP(Crl) No. 12231/2025 (II-B)
(IA No. 196147/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT; IA No. 196148/2025 -
EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.; IA No. 196149/2025 -
PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 28-10-2025 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, AOR Mr. Ekansh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Subhash Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
SNEHA DAS Date: 2025.10.28 Mr. Sahil Modi, Adv.
Ms. Harshita Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Abhimanshu Dhyani, Adv.
Mr. Subhash Chandra, Adv.
Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sahil Modi, Adv.
Ms. Harshita Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Abhimanshu Dhyani, Adv.
Mr. Subhash Chandra, Adv.
Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Mrs. Meera Patel, Adv.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv.
Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, AOR Mr. Ekansh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Subhash Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Abhinay, AOR Ms. Kirti Vyas, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Gupta, AOR Mr. Abhishek Dash, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Awana, Adv.
Mr. Dheeraj P Deo, AOR Mr. Jitender Chaudhary, Adv.
Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Adv.
Mr. R. C. Kohli, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(Crl.) No. 4928/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Two FIRs came to be lodged in connection with the illegal grabbing of the land by executing fake sale deeds. The first FIR was lodged on 09.01.2022 being FIR No. 13 of 2022 and the second FIR was lodged on 25.01.2022 being FIR No. 31 of 2022. In respect of both the FIRs, after investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation(‘CBI’) submitted a common charge sheet dated 28.12.2024.
3. The argument is that in respect of two separate FIRs, a common charge sheet cannot be submitted.
4. We have perused the charge sheet and we find that the petitioner is an Accused No. 13 and she has only been framed/charge sheeted in respect of the second FIR i.e. FIR No. 31 of 2022.
5. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been charge sheeted in respect of both the FIRs including the first FIR wherein she was not involved at all.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the petitioner has only been charge sheeted in respect of the second FIR, we do not consider it to be a fit case to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
7. The special leave petition, is accordingly, dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
SLP(Crl) No. 12231/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
2. The petitioner is a seventy-two year old citizen and is an accused No.1 in the FIR. He is charge sheeted with the offence of executing sale deed by impersonification. He was arrested on 21.12.2023 and is in jail ever since then. All the other co-accused persons(16 in number) have already been enlarged on bail. Though charge sheet has been submitted on 28.12.2023 but till date charges have not been framed.
3. Since ninety-five witnesses have been cited and the charges till date have not been framed, it is apparent that the trial is likely to take enough time to complete.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we consider it proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Accordingly, we direct for the enlargement of the petitioner on bail subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Tr