Supreme Court Dismisses Plea on Common Charge Sheet in CBI Land Fraud Case, Grants Bail to 72-Year-Old Co-Accused.


28 October 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Chargesheet >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law   |   Property Law >> Personal Law  

In an elaborate order in two connected petitions, the Supreme Court of India on October 28, 2025, refused to intervene in a petition by one of the accused challenging a charge sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) but granted bail to the main accused in the same case on grounds of his age, unduly prolonged custody, and delay in trial.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale had before it two linked petitions—Heena Thapa v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. (SLP (Crl.) No. 4928 of 2024) and a further petition (SLP (Crl.) No. 12231 of 2025)—both related to an alleged land grabbing fraud relating to forged sale deeds in Uttarakhand.

 

 

In the initial case, petitioner Heena Thapa contended that the CBI had made a mistake in filing a joint charge sheet pertaining to two different FIRs registered in January 2022—FIR No. 13 of 2022 and FIR No. 31 of 2022—pertaining to fake land deals. The bench, after seeing the charge sheet, established that Thapa was mentioned only in the second FIR and not in the initial one. Accordingly, it believed that there was no reason to entertain her grievance, as she had not been charge-sheeted for either of the offences. Finding no reason to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court rejected her petition.

In the case filed jointly, the court addressed the case of 72-year-old accused, who was designated as Accused No. 1 and had been in custody since December 21, 2023. The CBI inquiry in that case had ended with filing a charge sheet on December 28, 2023, but the trial was yet to be initiated, with charges not yet framed even though 95 witnesses were mentioned. The Court observed that all 16 other accused individuals had already been granted bail.

In light of the petitioner's old age, long period of incarceration, and high chance of lengthy delay in the conclusion of trial, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to conditions to be determined by the trial court, inter alia, surrendering his passport within a week of release.

Also, the bench resolved a plea by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra to delete an unnecessary mention of the defence lawyer's name in the High Court order. Concurring, the Supreme Court directed the removal of the phrase "by one and the same Advocate" from the record.

By striking a balance between procedural justice and humanitarian concerns, the Court re-established fundamental values of criminal justice—preventing extended detention of aging suspects where trials are belated, yet also respecting the propriety of investigation procedures carried out by the CBI.