Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sameer Kumar Jha vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2026
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@SLP(CRL.) NO.2642 OF 2026)
SAMEER KUMAR JHA ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Heard.
2. Application for impleadment is allowed.
3. Leave granted.
4. A complaint came to be lodged on 22.05.2024 by Respondent
No.2 (informant) alleging that the appellant, who was working
as Finance Manager, had created fake beneficiaries, forged
invoices and had siphoned off about Rs.3.45 crores of
company’s funds, which complaint came to be registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471,
120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After completion of
Signature Not Verifiedinvestigation chargesheet has been filed. On 23.04.2025
Digitally signed by
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2026.03.24
13:02:05 IST
Reason:
1 SLP(CRL.) NO.2642 OF 2026
appellant came to be arrested. The appellant’s application for
grant of regular bail having been rejected by the High Court,
the appellant is before this Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties
and on perusal of the records, we are of the considered view
that appellant is entitled for being enlarged on bail on two
grounds, firstly, the investigation having been concluded
chargesheet has been filed; secondly, the appellant has been
in custody from 23.04.2025 till date and his continued
incarceration is not warranted.
6. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that the
appellant would not turn-up for investigation on other two
accused being apprehended, can be simply allayed by putting
the appellant on terms, namely, we direct the appellant as
when called upon for further investigation should appear
before Investigating Officer (IO). To ensure that appellant
would not be at flight risk, it would be necessary to put
appellant on terms, namely, to surrender the passport to the
jurisdictional trial court and not to leave the jurisdiction
of the Court without express permission of trial court during
the pendency of the proceedings.
2 SLP(CRL.) NO.2642 OF 2026
7. With these conditions being imposed apart from such other
conditions that may further be imposed upon by the trial
court, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and
appellant is ordered to be released on bail by the
jurisdictional court.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
New Delhi;
March 20, 2026.
3 SLP(CRL.) NO.2642 OF 2026
ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.16 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(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2642/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-12-2025
in CRMM No. 52665/2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh]
SAMEER KUMAR JHA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION and I.R.
IA No. 47652/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.83432/2026 – Application for impleadment.
Date : 20-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Archit Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Subhash Chandra Jha, Adv.
Mr. Bramhansh Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Khushbu Sahu, AOR
Mr. Piyush Sanghi, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Singh, Adv.
Mr. Raahithya Raj Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Sana Praveen, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Singh Raghuvanshi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Khurana, AOR
4 SLP(CRL.) NO.2642 OF 2026
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Application for impleadment is allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. Appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed Order placed on
the file.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RASHI GUPTA) (AVGV RAMU)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
5 SLP(CRL.) NO.2642 OF 2026
