On June 16, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea for anticipatory bail filed by Om Prakash, who is accused of acting as a dunki facilitator in a high-profile cheating case. The complainant alleged that he was duped of ₹65 lakhs with the false promise of being illegally sent to the United States.

Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Seeking NEET UG 2025 Final Answer Key Before Results

The bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyyan and Justice Manmohan refused to grant relief, citing the seriousness of the charges, which fall under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The offences include:

• IPC Sections: 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 370 (trafficking), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation)
• BNS Sections: 316(2), 318(4), 143, 61(2), and 351(3)

"Very serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner," the Supreme Court observed while rejecting the bail application.

Read also: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Scheduled for June 16–21: Check Venue, Entry Gates, and Sitting Plan

Background of the Case

Om Prakash had initially approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which also rejected his anticipatory bail. The case was filed based on an FIR registered by the Haryana Police, where the complainant narrated a grim story of deceit.

According to the FIR, the main accused, with Om Prakash as his accomplice, assured the complainant that he would be sent to the United States through legal means in exchange for ₹43 lakhs. Following this, the complainant was first taken to Dubai in September 2024, and from there, transported through various countries, eventually reaching the forests of Panama and then Mexico.

On February 1, 2025, the complainant was made to cross the US border. However, he was caught by American police, jailed, and then deported to India on February 16, 2025.

Read also: Supreme Court: Res judicata applies to impleadment of legal heir under CPC

Further, it was also alleged that an additional ₹22 lakhs were taken from the complainant’s father by the accused agents, including Om Prakash.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail noting that:

"The complainant's father deposed that the petitioner had duped him of ₹22,00,000. The petitioner also has criminal antecedents and has been involved in similar crimes previously."

The High Court stressed the need for a proper and thorough investigation, considering the early stage of the case.

"The case is at its nascent stage. No such exceptional and extraordinary 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 further stated:

"It is 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 extraordinary remedy."

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