The charges framed after the charge sheet altered the tenor of the proceedings, necessitating the accused to seek regular bail for the substantive offences.

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed contending that the applicant cannot be compelled to seek a fresh bail under the substantive offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 inasmuch as the applicant is already on bail pursuant to the orders passed by the trial court on 10.9.2012 in terms of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. for the alleged commission of offences as defined under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 409 , 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. For this Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, has invited the attention of the Court to the contents of the FIR to urge that the FIR specifically mentions the alleged involvement of the applicant in the offences which are substantive offences as well and, therefore, it should be presumed that the order which was passed on 10.9.2012 is also in relation to the substantive offences as well for which he does not require any separate order on altering of the offences as substantive offences at the post charge stage. He further contends that Section 13(1)(c) is not a penal provision and is only a definition clause, therefore, no bail is required in the aforesaid section. The prayer made is to direct the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad to continue to give effect to the bail order dated 10.9.2012 and not to insist for any further bail in connection with the substantive offences.

3. He further submits that post framing of charges does not change the situation and the prevalent practice before the court concerned of calling upon the accused to get bails under the substantive offences separately should be discontinued. For this, learned counsel has also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hamida Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and others, 2008 (1) SCC Page 474 paragraph 10 in particular.

4. He has further supplied a compilation of the case laws and a brief note of submissions contending as to whether an accused already on bail is required to obtain bail again afresh for the offences for which he is charged after the charges are framed. His contention is that neither the court of trial is altered nor the offences for which the maximum punishment is provided gets altered on account of the addition of the substantive offences. He further submits that there is a statutory presumption of grant of bail in the substantive offences as well.

5. Sri Jafri, on the other hand, relies on the same judgment in the case of Hamida (supra) and contends that in this case charge sheet has already been filed then it is the offences mentioned in the charge sheet where the applicant is required to be released on bail.

6. It is urged by Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant that this would cause further delay in trial with no corresponding judicial gain and hence such a direction be issued.

7. In the application the applicant has indicated the passing of the orders in relation to other accused and has urged that the accused persons are being time and again sent to jail and taken in judicial custody merely on the ground of framing of charges of substantive offences in addition to the offences of criminal conspiracy which amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.

8. The argument advanced by Sri Shukla has to be judged on the facts of this case where it is evident that the applicant was on bail in an order passed by the trial court at the pre-charge sheet stage under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that at that stage also the words "substantive offences" had been mentioned in the FIR and, therefore, the presumption is that the applicant is on bail under the substantive offences as well. He further submits that the order of bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C. is a complete order on bail as understood under Sectio