Sharmeen Abdul Majid Ansari Alias Shormeen Answari vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Sharmeen Abdul Majid Ansari, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 57 registered on April 12, 2023, at Ranjit Avenue Police Station, Amritsar. The FIR was filed based on a complaint by Abhinav Seth, alleging that the petitioner and co-accused, partners/owners of Market Seller Company, induced investors, including employees and the public, to invest money with promises of high returns. The company allegedly closed operations in April 2023, and the accused absconded, causing a wrongful loss of approximately Rs. 50 crores. The petitioner claimed to be merely an HR manager with limited duties and no involvement in financial transactions or GST filings, attributing the allegations to professional rivalry. The trial court had previously dismissed her anticipatory bail application. Proceedings to declare her a proclaimed person had also been initiated.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. Regarding the issue of entitlement to anticipatory bail, the Court found the allegations against the petitioner to be serious. While acknowledging the petitioner's claim of suffering from Tuberculosis and being advised rest, the Court noted that no rest was advised beyond August 12, 2025. The Court reiterated the principle that arrest is a part of the investigation process and that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Court reasoned that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required for a thorough investigation. The Court also considered that proceedings to declare the petitioner a proclaimed person had been initiated. Consequently, the Court concluded that no exceptional circumstances warranted the grant of anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition. The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the serious allegations of cheating and fraud involving a sum of Rs. 50 crores. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that she was falsely implicated based on vague allegations and had only limited duties as an HR manager, with no role in financial transactions, investments, or GST filings. She argued that the company's accounts were operated by co-accused, and she was neither a signatory nor a beneficiary of any transaction. She also cited professional rivalry and personal health issues (Tuberculosis) as reasons for her implication and need for bail, stating her clean antecedents and readiness to join the investigation. Respondent's arguments: The State of Punjab argued that there were serious allegations against the petitioner, portraying her as one of the masterminds. They asserted that she had been evading arrest, leading to proceedings for declaring her a proclaimed person. The State emphasized the necessity of her custodial interrogation for a proper investigation into the Rs. 50 crore wrongful loss and argued that no exceptional circumstances warranted pre-arrest bail.