Supreme Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Dunki Agent In Cheating Case Filed By Man Deported From US

The Supreme Court today (June 16) refused to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of being a dunki facilitator and duping the complainant of an amount of Rs. 65 lakhs on the promise of sending him to the United States of America.

The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea for anticipatory bail by a person accused of offences under Sections 120-B, 370, 406, 420 and 506 of IPC (Sections 316(2), 318(4), 143, 61(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioner, Om Prakash, approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied him anticipatory bail in the FIR registered by the Haryana police.

Considering the gravity of the offences involved, the present bench refused to interfere in the impugned order. While dismissing the plea, it observed, "very serious allegations" were against the petitioner. 

Before The High Court 

The FIR states that the petitioner was an accomplice to the main accused, who was working as an agent, had assured the complainant that he would send him to the USA through valid means on the payment of Rs. 43,00,000/-

The main accused sent the complainant to Dubai in September 2024, and from there to different countries, then to the forests of Panama, and then to Mexico. On 01.02.2025, the donkers/agents to the main accused made him cross the American Border.

The Complainant was arrested by the American Police, jailed and deported to India on February 16, 2025. It was also alleged that the accused persons took 22,00,000 subsequently from the father of the complainant. 

The High Court refused to grant him anticipatory bail, noting that the complainant's father had deposed that the petitioner had duped him of Rs.22,00,000/-. The High Court observed that the petitioner also has criminal antecedents and has been involved in similar crimes previously. 

In order to ensure proper investigation into the matter, the Court observed, " The case is at its nascent stage. No such exceptional and extra ordinary circumstance could be pointed out by the petitioner's counsel on the basis of which it can be stated that he deserves to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. It is also well settled that the Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy." 

It added that "The case is at its nascent stage. No such exceptional and extra ordinary circumstance could be pointed out by the petitioner's counsel on the basis of which it can be stated that he deserves to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. It is also well settled that the Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy." 

Case Details : OM PARKASH vs. STATE OF HARYANA| SLP(Crl) No. 008965 - / 2025